BS 

23 


S13  na 


^^r"^    •<4- 


-.■Kf- 


i^?i?f^ 


■  I -■ ' 


LIBRARY 

OK  THE 


University  of  California. 


Gl  FT    OF 


'■A 


t,/L/!./,y%-r.,i..../.. 


Class ' 


# 


FOUNDED  BY   JOHN  D.  ROCEBFULLBB 


DOES    HELLENISM    CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 
ELEMENTS  TO  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF   THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY 

SCHOOL  IN   CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR    OF   PHILOSOPHY. 

DBPARTMBNT    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT    LITERATUKE    AND    INTERPRETATION 


BY 


JOHN    WILLIAM    BAILEY 


CHICAGO 
frraa  of  <6ea.  IK.  i^azlUt  $:  (So. 

1905 


DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 
ELEMENTS  TO  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY. 


®l|F  Inm^rHity  of  OUtragn 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  KOCKEFBLLEE 


DOES    HELLENISM    CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 
ELEMENTS  TO  PAUL'S  CHRISTOLOGY 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF   THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY 

SCHOOL  IN    CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY. 

DEPARTMENT    OF    NEW    TESTAMENT    I,ITERATUKE    AND    INTERPRETATION 


BY 

JOHN    WILLIAM    BAILEY 

II 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 

chTcago 

frrBB  of  (6to.  K.  I^azlilt  Sc  (Ha. 

1905 


'BSucri 
33 


Copyright,  1905 
The  Univehsity  of  Chicago. 


,(/aL 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS 


Introduction. 

1.  General  point  of  view. 

a.  Paul's  relation  to  Palestinian  Judaism. 

b.  Relation  to  primitive  Christianity. 

2.  Specific  elements. 

a.  Those  of  Judaism  and  primitive  Jewish  Christianity. 

b.  Some  whose  relation  to   Hellenistic   thought   must  be 

investigated. 

I.  Second  Adam. 

1.  Exposition  of  x^aul's  thought. 

2.  Origin  of   Paul's  thought. 

a.  Exposition  of    Philo  :    relation  of  Paul  and  Philo  as  to 

( 1 )  Concept. 

(2)  Term. 

b.  Palestinian  Jewish    thought :    the    elements    which    it 

contributes. 

c.  Paul's  experience. 

II.  Fre-existence. 

1.  Exposition  of  Paul's  doctrine. 

a.      Classification  and  discussion  of  passages. 

2.  Origin  of  Paul's  doctrine. 

a.  Primitive  Christianity. 

b.  Greek  conceptions. 

c.  Jewish  thought. 

d.  Paul's  experience. 

3.  Peculiar  features. 

III.  Cosmic  Function. 

1.  New    question:     the   sources. 

2.  Classification  and  exposition  of  passages. 

3.  Origin  of  Paul's  conception. 

a.  Hellenistic  conceptions. 

b.  Jewish  and  primitive  Christian. 

c.  Paul's  experience. 

IV.  Conclusion. 


1G1430 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  seeking  to  answer  the  question  investigated  in  this  essay  it 
is  advisable  to  get  the  right  point  of  view  from  which  to  consider 
Paul's  constructive  thinking.  In  the  matter  of  other  New  Testa- 
ment writers  the  problem  is  not  so  difficult.  No  one  would  e.  g., 
inquire  with  any  seriousness  whether  Hellenistic  thought  had  en- 
tered constructively  into  the  synoptic  gospels.  On  the  other  hand, 
no  one  can  seriously  doubt  that  it  has  influenced  largely  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  and  probably  the  fourth  gospel.  In  the  case  of 
Paul,  however,  there  is  room  for  investigation.  By  birth  he  was  a 
Hellenistic  Jew,  by  training  a  Palestinian,  and  the  question  as  to 
the  influences  which  entered  constructively  into  his  thought  becomes 
legitimate  and  natural. 

If  we  interrogate  the  apostle  through  his  writings  we  have  not 
long  to  wait  for  an  answer  as  respects  that  which  was  most  funda- 
mental. 

He  takes  pains  to  tell  us  several  times  (Gal.  i  :i4;  2  Cor.  11 :22 ; 
Phil.  3  :5  ;  cf.  Acts  23  :6)  that  he  was  one  of  the  most  zealous  adher- 
ents to  the  traditions  of  his  fathers  as  they  were  handed  down  by  the 
Palestinian  Rabbis  that  could  be  found  among  all  his  countrymen. 
He  was  blameless  in  his  life  as  a  Pharisee,  was  more  exceedingly 
zealous  than  many  of  his  own  age,  and  was  a  persecutor  of  the 
Christian  church  because  of  his  zeal  for  that  which  he  had  learned 
in  the  Rabbinic  schools.  It  would  do  violence  to  the  apostle's  own 
testimony  to  make  him  fundamentally  a  representative  of  Hellen- 
istic rather  than  of  Pharisaic  Judaism. 

But  the  incidental  testimony  of  his  own  writings  is  even  stronger 
in  its  indication  of  the  apostle's  central  standpoint.  No  one  will 
question  that  the  letters  of  Paul  ally  themselves  in  general  point 
of  view  with  Palestinian  Judaism.  The  intense  regard  for  the  law 
and  the  strenuous  endeavor  to  observe  its  precepts  which  Gal. 2  :i5flf, 
and  Rom.  7  show  to  have  been  characteristic  of  pre-Christian 
Saul,  were  impossible  except  to  a  Pharisee  of  the  Pharisees.  Philo, 
it  is  true,  indicates  that  there  was  in  Hellenistic  Judaism  a  differ- 
ence in  point  of  view  concerning  the  binding  character  of  the  law. 
But,  according  to  the  same  representation,  Philo  was  himself  one 
of  those  who  held  that  it  was  not  to  be  abrogated.  But  that  Philo 
could  in  any  wise  be  classed  with  the  Pharisees  or  could  have  writ- 
ten of  his  own  struggles  to  keep  the  law  as  Paul  has  done  cannot 
be  seriously  thought  of.  Philo  the  Hellenistic  legalist,  and  Saul  the 
Pharisee,  are  as  far  apart  as  the  east  and  the  west. 


O  INTRODUCTION. 

Another  point  in  which  Paul  is  clearly  in  line  with  Palestinian 
thought  is  his  general  Messianic  expectation.  The  difference  be- 
tween Hellenistic  and  Palestinian  Judaism  on  this  subject  is  even 
more  marked  than  on  the  point  just  considered.  The  role  which 
the  Messiah  played  in  the  expectation,  its  general  catastrophic 
character  involving  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  at  least  and 
eternal  punishment  of  the  wicked;  the  world  judgment  in  which  the 
Messiah  as  the  representative  of  Jehovah,  or  Jehovah  himself,  sat 
on  the  throne  and  rewarded  men  according  to  their  deeds,  all  these 
belong  to  Palestinian  Judaism  and  are  carried  over  into  the  Chris- 
tian thought  of  Paul.  In  contrast  with  this  we  have  in  the  Hellen- 
istic writers  who  reflect  the  messianic  ideal  at  all,  little  more  than 
a  hope  for  the  restoration  of  the  Dispersion  to  Jerusalem,  and  a 
rehabilitation  and  purgation  of  the  land.  In  so  far  as  a  ]\Iessiah 
appears  at  all  he  is  regarded  simply  as  a  leader  appointed  from  the 
community  to  direct  the  people.  This,  it  is  true,  is  very  similar  to 
the  hope  of  the  Zealots  in  Palestine  itself.  But  the  general  view 
of  Paul  is  not  that  of  the  Zealots,  or  even  of  the  popular  expecta- 
tion, but  is  most  closely  allied  with  that  of  the  Apocalyptists. 

If,  now,  Paul  occupied  the  same  general  position  as  the  most 
advanced  Palestinian  thought,  he  also  was  closely  connected  with 
primitive  Christianity.  Although  his  thought  represents  an  ad- 
vance beyond  anything  to  be  discovered  in  Jewish  Christian  writers, 
there  is  ample  evidence  that  in  the  beginning  he  was  in  close  connec- 
tion with  it.  The  struggle  which  he  had  with  Jewish  Christianity 
was  not  in  reference  to  any  Christological  problems.  Both  he  and 
the  Jewish  Christians  held  essentially,  in  the  beginning  at  least,  the 
same  view  concerning  the  positive  work  of  Christ.  The  point  at 
which  they  differed  was  as  to  the  implication  of  that  work  of  Christ 
concerning  the  old  legal  system.  For  both,  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
the  bringer  of  life  to  his  followers,  the  representative  of  God,  and 
had  been  appointed  both  Lord  and  Christ.  To  the  Jewish  Christian 
who  had  not  tested  thoroughly  the  legalistic  conception  of  religion, 
and  had  not  thought  through  the  significance  of  Christ's  activity, 
the  old  legal  system  seemed  binding.  Paul  himself  had  received 
from  the  primitive  church  the  teaching  that  Christ  died  for  sins 
according  to  the  Scriptures  (i  Cor.  15:3)  and  had  been  raised 
again,  and  his  earliest  preaching  seems  to  have  placed  the  emphasis 
upon-  these  facts.  But  he  knew,  as  he  thought  the  matter  to  the  bot- 
tom, that  the  legalistic  system  had  been  utterly  done  away  in  Christ. 
If  it  was  still  binding  then  Christ  had  died  in  vain  (Gal.  2:21). 
Thus  on  the  questions  investigated  in  this  essay  there  seems  no 
reason  for  saying  that  Paul  represents  anything  more  than  an  ad- 
vance over  Jewish  Christianity.  He  evidently  started  from  the 
same  general  position,  and  he  worked  farther  through  the  problem 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

because  of  the  conditions  which  he  had  to  face  and  the  natural  abil- 
ity and  the  training  which  he  brought  to  bear  upon  the  task.  (See 
more  fully  below,  p.  54.) 

While,  then,  Paul,  by  training  and  tradition,  occupied  the  gen- 
eral point  of  view  of  Palestinian  Judaism  and  primitive  Jewish 
Christianity,  we  must  also  remember  that  his  opportunities  for 
making  the  acquaintance  of  Hellenistic  thought  were  large.  He 
was  bom  and  spent  his  early  years  in  Tarsus,  itself  a  great  com- 
mercial metropolis,  and  one  of  the  centers  of  Greek  philosophy,  full 
of  the  devotees  of  learning  and  the  home  of  several  of  the  most 
noted  teachers  of  Stoicism.  According  to  the  testimony  of  Strabo 
(Book  XIV,  5,  13-15),  it  surpassed  even  Athens  and  Alexandria 
"and  every  other  place  which  can  be  named  where  there  are  schools 
and  lectures  of  philosophy."  In  this  atmosphere  Paul  was  reared. 
The  Jews  in  all  probability  had  their  own  quarter  of  the  city  as  was 
the  custom  in  the  cities  of  the  Empire^  but  Paul's  father  being  a 
Roman  citizen  as  well  as  a  citizen  of  Tarsus  (Acts  16:27 ; 22  :26-28) 
was  most  probably  a  man  of  wealth  and  position.  For  according  to 
Dio  Chrysostom  (Arnim's  Ed.  I,  p.  321)  most  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  city  were  outside  of  citizenship  and  a  certain  fortune  was  re- 
quired to  attain  it.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Paul  mingled 
freely  with  the  best  people  of  the  city  and  was  in  daily  contact  with 
the  Greek  speaking  population,  for  it  is  highly  probable  that  a  family 
with  the  rank  and  standing  of  Paul's  would  cast  off  its  Jewish  ex- 
clusiveness  (See  Dig  Chrysostom,  Arnim's  Ed.  I,  p.  302;  p.  321). 
Especially  would  this  be  true  if,  as  Ramsay  has  suggested,  Paul's 
father  was  connected  with  the  administration  of  the  government. 
This  would  by  no  means  necessitate  a  waning  of  zeal  for  Jewish 
traditions.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  attended  Greek  schools 
here,  and  the  fact  that  at  an  early  age  (Acts  26:4,  5)  he  was  sent  to 
Jerusalem  to  study  in  the  Rabbinic  schools  (x\cts  22:3)  strongly 
suggests  that  his  parents  were  sufficiently  zealous  of  the  traditions 
to  have  given  him  in  the  S3'nagogue  school  such  training  as  he  may 
have  previously  received.  Otherwise,  he  would  scarcely  have  been 
prepared  for  his  duties  at  Jerusalem.  If  he  went  to  Jerusalem  at 
the  usual  early  age  he  can  hardly  have  had  opportunity  to  learn 
very  much  of  Greek  thought  in  Tarsus  in  his  boyhood.  Of  course 
his  studies  at  Jerusalem  were  not  connected  with  Hellenistic 
thought.- 

'JosEPHus,  Ant.  XII.  I,  7;  XIV.  3,  2;  War.  II.  18,  2;  con.  Ap.  II.  4;  cf. 
ScHURER,  Gcmeindeverfassung  etc.,  and  Ramsay,  Exp.  1902,  pp.  19-32;  92-109. 
But  see  Philo,  ad  Flaccum,  8. 

^ScHiELE,  Z.  IV.  TH.  1899,  p.  31.  suggests  that  Paul  was  one  of  the  five 
hundred  pupils  of  Gamaliel  who,  according  to  Jewish  traditions,  gave  them- 
selves to  the  study  of  Greek  philosophy  and  literature.  Even   Lightfoot,  Bib. 


lO  INTRODUCTION". 

After  his  conversion  Paul  spent  some  years  in  the  province  of 
Syria-Cilicia.  Zahn  {Einleitung,  \o\.  I,  p.  2)7)  lias  suggested  that 
Paul  knowing  that  he  was  to  be  the  apostle  to  the  gentiles  spent  at 
least  a  part  of  this  time  in  preparation  for  his  task  by  acquainting 
himself  with  Greek  philosophical  and  rhetorical  learning  (cf.  I  Cor. 
9:19-23).  This  is  the  opinion  of  various  scholars  (e.  g.  Findlay, 
Art.  Paul,  Hastings  Diet,  of  ihe  Bible:  Ramsay,  St.  Paul,  etc.,  pp. 
353-356;  and  very  emphatically  Kosters,  St.  und  Kr.  1854,  p.  307; 
and  GoDET,  fnf.  to  the  Pauline  Epp.  pp.  70-71)  but  the  evidence 
points  rather  in  another  direction.  It  would  be  difficult  to  state  more 
clearly  than  Paul  has  done  in  Gal.  i  -.zt,  that  at  least  a  part  of  this 
time  was  devoted  to  the  work  of  spreading  the  gospel.  If  to  this 
be  added  two  passages  in  Acts  there  would  seem  to  remain  little 
room  for  question  as  to  how  he  was  occupied  during  this  period. 
It  appears  from  Acts  15  :4i  that  at  the  time  of  the  second  missionary 
journey  there  were  churches  in  Syria-Cilicia  which  had  been 
founded  some  time,  perhaps  years  before,  and  in  all  probability 
were  due  to  the  labors  of  Paul  (see  Rom.  15:20-22;  cf.  II  Cor. 
io:i3ff,  also  Acts  15:23).  In  the  early  days  of  the  church  at  An- 
tioch  when  it  w'as  brought  under  the  surveillance  of  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  Barnabas  who  had  been  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch 
"went  forth  to  Tarsus  to  seek  for  Saul"  (Acts  11 :25,  26).  It  seems 
very  clear  that  the  report  of  Paul,  such  e.  g.  as  is  impHed  in  Gal. 
1 :23,  had  reached  Antioch.  It  is  further  implied  by  the  whole  con- 
text of  Acts  11:25,  26  that  the  w'ork  of  Paul  as  a  missionary  and 
a  preacher  of  the  gospel  was  well  known  and  highly  valued.  This 
could  scarcely  have  been  true  if  he  had  not  been  largely  engaged  in 
such  work.  Since  this  coming  of  Paul  to  Antioch  must,  by  any 
chronology,  have  been  as  early  as  44  A.  D.  it  would  not  allow  any 
great  length  of  time  after  Paul's  conversion  and  his  return  to  Syria- 
Cilicia  for  him  to  engage  in  other  activities  (cf.  B.  Weiss,  Einlei- 
tung, p.  115,  Eng.  tr.  I,  157)  as  he  did  not  reach  there  until  about 
four  years  after  his  conversion.  Thus  the  facts  of  Paul's  life  so  far 
as  they  are  ascertainable  are  distinctly  opposed  to  the  supposition 
that  he  had  any  special  training  in  Hellenistic  thought.  It  is  rather 
suggested  that  his  knowledge  of  Hellenistic  life  and  thought  came 
from  his  incidental  i^ersonal  association  and  daily  contact  with  it. 
Throughout  his  missionary  career  he  was  constantly  in  territory  in 
which  he  must  almost  every  day  have  been  aware  of  the  great  differ- 
ence in  mental  life  and  possession  between  himself  and  those  by 
whom  he  was  surrounded.  The  difference  in  his  conception  of 
heathenism  as  reflected  in  Gal.  4:8-10,  I  Cor.  12:2  and  Rom.  i  :i8ff, 
respectively,  seems  clearly  to  show  progression  in  his  understanding 

Essays,  p.  205,  thinks  that  Gamaliel  would  have  encouraged  Paul  "not  to  neg- 
lect Greek  culture."    This  is  all  pure  phantasic. 


INTRODUCTION.  II 

of  it  and  his  appreciation  of  its  condition.  That  he  made  any  con- 
scious effort  to  acquaint  himself  with  gentile  thought  and  to  incor- 
porate it  in  his  system  seems  pretty  clearly  contradicted  by  the 
second  chapter  of  the  first  Corinthian  letter.  His  adaptation  to  the 
thought  against  which  he  utters  his  polemic  in  Colossians  is  forced 
upon  him  by  the  circumstances  which  he  had  to  meet. 

We  discover  then  no  a  priori  probability  that  Hellenism  con- 
tributed largely  to  the  apostle's  thought.  He  was  essentially,  a 
Pharisaic  Jew  in  close  sympathy  with  much  of  primitive  Jewish 
Christian  thought  and  quite  out  of  line  with  the  great  movements  of 
Hellenistic  Judaism.^  But  the  question  as  to  whether  Hellenistic 
thought  entered  into  his  constructive  Christological  thinking  is 
simply  a  question  of  evidence  and  must  not  be  prejudged. 

This  can  be  decided  only  by  a  discussion  of  the  elements  of 
Paul's  Christology  as  they  appear  in  his  letters. 

There  are  certain  features  of  his  Christological  thought  in  which 
without  any  question  he  is  working  along  purely  Jewish  lines.  The 
conception  of  Jesus  as  Christ,  which  in  fact  is  the  great  central 
element  of  his  thought,  is  of  course  purely  Jewish.  His  conception 
of  that  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  men,  as  the  savior  of  men 
from  the  wrath  of  God  and  the  guarantee  to  them  of  his  final  ap- 
proval, is  in  direct  continuation  of  Jewish  thought,  though  in  some 
respects  going  far  beyond  it.  His  conception  of  Christ  as  the  son  of 
God  is  also  in  direct  relation  to  Jewish  and  primitive  Christian 
thought.  He  may  have  thought  of  the  basis  of  this  sonship  in  a 
way  different  from  that  in  which  it  was  conceived  by  either  Judaism 
or  the  primitive  church,  but  the  term  expressing,  the  content  of 
sonship,  does  not  depart  widely  from  them.  His  designation  of 
Christ  as  Lord  is  with  him  a  purely  religious  term,  the  correlate  of 
which  is  8oi3Xog  by  which  term  he  expresses  his  complete  subjec- 
tion to  the  will  of  Christ.  This  conception  of  the  lordship  of  Christ 
is  also  directly  in  line  with  the  best  Jewish  thought  in  general,  and 
with  the  thought  of  the  early  church  as  reflected  in  Acts  in  particu- 
lar. 

While  there  are  thus  certain  elements  which  no  one  can  ques- 
tion as  being  Jewish,  there  are  certain  others  which  call  for  more 
extended  consideration.     His  doctrine  of  the  heavenly  Christ,  the 


°The  essay  of  Canon  Hicks,  Stiidia  Biblica,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  1-13,  on  "St. 
Paul  and  Hellenism"  seems  generally  accepted,  among  English  writers  at 
least,  as  representing  the  proper  point  of  view  with  respect  to  Paul's  relation 
to  Hellenism.  It  seems  to  me  to  represent  for  the  most  part  a  vivid  piece  of 
fancy.  He  thinks,  e.  g.,  that  Paul  is  Hellenic  in  his  ethics  inasmuch  as  "(i) 
they  rest  upon  a  principle,  life  in  Christ,  and  (2)  he  is  logical  in  the  classifica- 
tion of  virtues."  Even  more  groundless  is  his  notion  that  in  fighting  for  the 
universality  of  the  gospel,  Paul  was  really  working  out  a  principle  of  Hellen- 
ism.   I  wonder  if  Jesus  was  doing  the  same.' 


12  INTRODUCTION. 

pre-existent  one  in  the  form  of  God,  his  relation  to  the  origin,  the 
history  and  the  consummation  of  the  cosmos,  and  his  incarnation, 
present  elements  of  his  thought  which  are  by  many  claimed,  and 
with  plausibility  it  must  be  said,  to  be  expressions  of  the  influence  of 
Hellenism  upon  his  thinking.  These  and  other  elements  may  be 
grouped  around  the  three  conceptions,  Second  Adam,  Pre-exis- 
tence,  and  Cosmic  Function  and  these  must  now  be  investigated. 


THE  SECOND  ADAM. 

In  three  well-known  passages  (Rom.  5:12-21;  I  Cor.  15:20-23; 
I  Cor.  15:45-49)  Paul  brings  Adam  and  Christ  into  very  striking 
relation.  In  the  first  and  second  of  these  he  elaborates  with  clear- 
ness and  definiteness  the  antithetic  parallelism  between  the  sin  of 
Adam  and  the  death  of  Christ  as  they  respectively  affect  the  destiny 
of  mankind.  Both  passages  present  essentially  the  same  antithesis, 
but  the  apostle's  thought  is  exhibited  in  the  first  with  much  greater 
fulness  and  clearness.  The  third  passage  deals  with  the  same 
general  antithesis  of  Adam  and  Christ,  but  in  the  designation  of 
the  latter  as  the  "last  Adam,"  the  "second  man"  the  apostle  exhibits 
an  element  of  thought  which  is  not  definitely  expressed  in  either 
of  the  other  two  passages.  They  must,  however,  be  considered  in 
the  attempt  to  attain  a  true  appreciation  of  the  thought  which  the 
third  passage  contains. 

Recent  scholars  of  different  schools  have  accorded  this  concep- 
tion of  the  "second  Adam"  a  central  place  in  Pauline  thought. 
Beyschlag  (Nezu  Testament  Theology,  Vol.  II,  pp.  48-88)  seized 
upon  it  as  the  key  to  Paul's  Christology,  and  Bovon  (Theologie  du 
Nouveau  Testament,  Vol.  II,  pp.  253-75)  is  largely  controlled  by 
the  same  conception.  Somerville  in  his  recent  monograph  {St. 
Paul's  Conception  of  Christ:  The  Cunningham  Lectures,  1897), 
though  working  on  lines  differing  from  Beyschlag,  presents  a  very 
elaborate  statement  of  the  apostle's  Christology,  with  this  antithesis 
as  the  point  of  departure.  Holtzmann  {Lehrbiich  der  Neutestament- 
liche  Theologie,  p.  55)  regards  it  as  the  "metaphysical  background" 
for  Paul's  Christology,  and  Holsten  {Znm  Evangelinm  des  Paidus 
itnd  Petrus,  p.  71ft')  even  ventured  the  opinion  that  the  metaphysical 
conception  of  the  heavenly  man  here  involved  was  a  sine  qua  non  of 
the  "Christus-vision"  which  resulted  in  the  conversion  of  Paul. 

The  importance  which  scholars  of  so  widely  varying  view  points 
agree  in  attaching  to  the  conception,  the  different  interpretations 
given  to  it  and  the  opinions  which  are  held  concerning  its  origin, 
bespeak  for  it  a  leading  place  in  the  present  investigation.  Accord- 
ingly the  discovery  of  the  thought  which  underlies  the  designation 
of  Christ  as  the  "second  Adam,"  and  the  origin  of  the  conception, 
constitute  the  first  problem  of  this  paper.* 


*The  method  to  be  pursued  in  this  entire  investigation  is  obviously  one  of 
two  alternatives.    On  the  one  hand,  we  may  assume  the  origin  of  the  apostle's 

13 


14  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

The  entire  passage  (I  Cor.  15:45-49)  with  which  we  have  first 
to  deal,  reads  as  follows : 

OUTC05  xal  yeypaiTtTai  eye  veto  6  TtQibroq  avOQCOJtog  'Ada.\i  el? 
i[>vxi]v  ^(hoav  6  eax«T05  'ylSctfx  elg  Jiveijtia  ^coo;toiom'.  dXX'  ov  jtqo)- 
Tov  TO  Jtveujiatixov  oKka  x6  xpuxixov,  ejieita  to  .tvEV'|iaTix6v.  6  tiqG)- 
xog  avOpca-nrog  ex  yf]?  /oi^'OSi  0  8evTE()og  d'vdQCOJCog  1^  ovQavoi).  0105 
6  xoixog,  ToiovToi  01  xoi^xgi,  xal  0105  6  f.-rovQcxvio?,  toiovtoi  01  inov- 
pdvioi*  xal  xaOcbg  eq)OQEaa_u£v  T7]v  elxova  Toij  x^'ixov,  [(poQ£aa)|iev]» 
xal  TT)v  eixova  toO  ETcovgaviov. 

The  contrast  which  Paul  here  institutes  may  be  schematically 
represented  thus : 
Verse  45.     The  first  Adam  became  living  soul. 

The  last  Adam  became  life-giving  spirit. 
Verse  46.     First  the  psychic. 

Then  the  pneumatic. 
\'erse  47.     First  man  of  earth,  earthy. 

Second  man  of  heaven   (heavenly,  verse  48). 
Verse  48.     Earthy  (natural)  men  like  him. 

Heavenly   (raised)   men  like  him. 
Verse  49.     We  now  bear  iiis  image. 

We  shall  (after  resurrection)  bear  his  image. 
It  is  apparent  from  a  careful  reading  of  Paul's  language  that 
the  contrast  between  the  "first"  and  "second  Adam"  is  not  presented 
for  its  own  sake,  but  for  the  bearing  which  it  has  upon  the  ques- 
tion to  which  he  is  addressing  himself,  the  character  of  the  resur- 
rection body.  In  verse  35  he  has  proposed  the  rhetorical  question, 
"How  are  the  dead  raised,  with  what  body  do  they  come?"  Verses 
36-43  are  intended  to  lead  up  to  the  answer  to  this  question  which 
he  offers  in  verse  44.  He  there  declares  that  being  sown  a  psychic 
or  natural  body  it  is  raised  a  pneumatic  body.  In  anticipation  of 
the  objection  that  there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  a  pneumatic 

thought,  and  interpret  it  in  accordance  with  the  conception  reflected  in  the 
source  from  which  it  is  supposed  to  be  drawn.  But  this  would  be  a  gross 
petitio  principii  and  is  wholly  unwarranted.  On  the  other  hand,  we  may 
endeavor  to  discover  by  an  interpretation  of  the  apostle's  statements  the  gen- 
eral positions  which,  independently  of  their  origin,  are  with  certainty 
attested  as  his;  and  then,  before  passing  final  judgment,  inquire  after  their 
antecedents,  with  a  view  to  a  deeper  understanding  or  a  more  intelligent 
appreciation  of  the  thought  already  attained.  This  is  certainly  the  only  true 
method  and  the  one  we  shall  attempt  to  follow. 

"The  brackets   are   Westcott  and  Horts.     Weiss   supported   by   B   reads 
q)OQEaO|J.ev.The  internal  evidence  of  the  passage  strongly  favors  this  reading. 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  1 5 

body  exists,  he  replies  that  analogy  suggests  its  existence.  If,  as  no 
one  questions  (  £i  eativ  )  there  exists  the  psychic  body,  the  logical 
inference  is  that  there  exists  also  a  pneumatic  body  (  lativ  xal  ) ; 
and  furthermore,  (xal)  this  logical  presumption  is  supported  (not 
proved)  by  the  scripture  itself  (outoog  YEYQCt^T^ccO- Then  immediately 
follow  the  words  of  verse  45  which  present  to  us  the  conception  of 
the  "second  Adam"  whose  meaning  we  are  now  seeking  to  resolve. 
The  remainder  of  the  paragraph,  verses  46-49,  is  part  of  a  larger 
argument  but  is  quite  important  in  helping  to  arrive  at  the  thought 
of  verse  45. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  passage  is  introduced  apparently  as  a 
quotation  from  the  Old  Testament.*^  The  obvious  basis  for  it  is  to 
be  found  in  the  LXX  of  Gen.  2 :/,  but  it  is  not  infrequently  main- 
tained that  Paul  has  in  mind  also  the  passage  in  Gen.  i  127.  (So 
Hausrath,  Times  of  the  Apostles,  III,  pp.  95-1 11;  Holsten, 
Evangelium  des  Paiilns,  Vol.  I,  in  loco.  Cf.  Pfleiderer^  Paiilinism, 
English  translation,  p.  ii/ff,  and  Schmiedel  Hand-Konimentar, 
Excursus,  p.  168).  For  this  position  however  there  is  no  support. 
The  only  point  in  the  entire  passage  in  which  there  is  even  a  possi- 
ble suggestion  of  Gen.  1 127,  is  in  verse  49,  which  contains  the  word 
Eixova.  A  closer  scrutiny  of  this  verse,  however,  indicates  that  it 
is  Gen.  5  :3  rather  than  i  :27,  which  the  apostle  has  in  mind.  In 
the  first  part  of  the  verse  he  is  thinking  of  man's  relation  to  Adam, 
and  in  the  second  part,  of  his  relation  to  Christ.  In  neither  is  there 
a  direct  reference  to  the  nature  of  Christ  or  to  his  relation  to  God, 
such  as  the  inclusion  of  Gen.  i  •.2y  would  involve.  To  regard  1 127 
as  included  in  the  quotation  is  not  only  a  pure  gratuity  but  virtually 
a  begging  of  the  question.  For  it  cannot  be  shown  to  be  reflected 
except  on  the  assumption  that  the  apostle's  conception  includes  a 
contrast  between  the  man  of  Gen.  1 127  and  that  of  2  '.y.  This  as- 
sumption involves  the  question  under  consideration. 

How  much  of  the  passage  is  regarded  by  the  apostle  as  a  part 
of  the  quotation?  It  is  maintained  by  some  (e.  g.  Holtzmann,  op. 
cit.  p.  55,  note  i,  and  p.  76;  Feine,  Das  Gesetcesfreie  Evangelium 
des  Paulus,  pp.  34,  35 ;  Holsten,  Evangelium  des  Paulus,  Vol.  I,  p. 
432,  II,  p.  40;  and  Vollmer,  Alttestamentliche  Citate,  p.  54)  that 
he  intends  to  include  the  whole  verse.  The  evidence,  however,  rath- 
er tends  to  show  that  he  did  not  consider  it  to  extend  beyond  ^coaav 
(Cf.  Heinrici,  Edwards,  Godet,  ad  loc).  Such  a  quotation  would 
not  only  be  contrary  to  fact  but  would  not  speak  well  for  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  apostle  or  his  readers.     In  addition  to  this  he  seems 

°The  consideration  of  this  fact  is  an  apparent  but  not  real  violation  of  the 
method  adopted  above  and  is  rendered  necessary  by  the  express  words  of  the 
passage  itself. 


l6  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

to  have  distinctly  recognized  the  verbal  inadequacy  of  the  text  of 
the  original  passage,  for  into  it  he  inserts  two  words.  The  JtQoJTOc; 
which  he  places  just  before ctvOQCo^-rog  was,  as  will  be  clearly  shown 
below,  taken  over  from  current  Judaism  and  was  intended  to  balance 
the  Eaxatog  of  the  next  clause.  The  'Aba[i  which  immediately  fol- 
lows av{*pa):ro(;  is  its  Hebrew  equivalent,  and  balances  the  same  word 
in  the  next  clause.  Both  these  words  are  introduced  to  give  point 
to  the  antithesis  respecting  Adam  and  Christ,  which  Paul  intends  to 
exhibit  (cf.  Bengel,  Heinrici,  Edwards  and  Godet  ad  he).  By 
neither  of  these  additions  does  the  apostle  do  violence  to  the  thought 
of  the  original  passage,  and  the  procedure  is  quite  in  accordance 
with  the  interpretative  method  of  the  time.    (cf.  note  7.  fin.) 

Can  we  regard  the  second  part  of  the  verse  (45)  as  an  inter- 
pretative addition  to  the  original  text  and  thus  explain  the  concep- 
tion of  the  "second  x-\dam"?  This  is  virtually  the  position  of  those 
(e.  g.  \'oLLMER,  op.  cit.  p.  54;  JowETT,  Commentary  on  Thcssalon- 
ians,  Galafians  and  Romans,  Vol.  I,  p.  145 ;  and  Thacker.w,  The 
Relation  of  Paul  to  Contemporary  Jezi'ish  Thought,  p.  47)  who 
think  that  the  apostle  derived  the^veiJfxa^coojioioOvas  predicated  of 
the  "last  Adam,"  from  the  words  jrvoiiv  Cwfi?  in  the  original  pas- 
sage. This  position  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  a  plausible  one  even 
on  the  supposition  that  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  which  Paul  used 
read  :;tver'[.ia  ^oofis  instead  of  :tvoi]v  ^cofi?.  The  evidence  for  this  is 
but  slight,  being  found  chiefly  in  Philo  and  even  this  is  weak."  In 
cither  case  it  is  hardly  probable  that  the  apostle  would  find  a  refer- 
ence to  the  "second  man"  in  a  statement  which  in  the  original  text 
is  not  only  expressly  referred  to  the  "first  man,"  but  also  forms  the 

'In  leg.  alleg.  III.  55;  and  quod  det.  pot.  insid.  22  he  reads ::tVEi3na  ^cof]? 
but  in  de  plant.  5;  de  somno,  I.  6;  leg.  alleg.  I.  12;  de  opif.  mundi,  46;  de 
mundo,  4;  quis  rcr.  div.  her.,  11,  he  reads  JCVOT)V  ^coiig.  In  leg.  alleg.  I.  13 
fill,  he  bases  an  argument  on  the  fact  that  Moses  uses  Jtvoiiv  and  not  :tx£viin. 
Symmachus  and  Theodotion  read  dva;tV0Tiv  ^(of];.  Cf.  Philo,  quod  det. 
pot.  insid.  22,  Oil  jiveC'na  eanv  f\  y\!vyr]<;  ovoia.  See  further  H.\tch, 
Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,  pp.  147-49.  Notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  Hatch 
"llie  hypothesis  that  the  two  readings  coexisted  in  the  earliest  forms  of  the 
Septuagint"  derives  but  little  support  from  Wisdom  15:11,  which  combines 
the  two  readings  of  Philo  as  follows : 
Oil   fiyvoTiae  Tov  jtXaoavta  avtov  yjtl  tov  ej^iJtveijaavTa  (tuxtp  \|'vxtiv 

ivcgyovauv  xal  encpvoi'ioavTa  n\Euna  ^canxov. 

Josephus,  Ant.  I.  1:2  (Niesc  I.  24).  gives  essentially  the  same  combination. 
But  a  comparison  of  this  quotation  of  Josephus  with  the  one  from  Gen.  2:1-3 
in  the  preceding  paragraph  makes  it  clear  that  the  addition  to  tlie  original  text 
is  abundantly  explained  on  otlicr  prounds.  He  seems  to  have  incorporated 
into  the  original  passage  which  lie  quotes  his  understanding  of  its  meaning 
and  to  have  given  it  as  a  p.irt  of  the  quotation. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  1/ 

connecting-  link  between  two  statements,  which  even  on  the  hypo- 
thesis in  question  he,  in  agreement  with  the  original  passage,  refers 
to  the  "first  man."  Nor  is  there  more  ground  for  the  position  which 
Vollmer  {op.  cit.  pp.  54,  55)  attributes  to  Schottgen,  according  to 
which  Paul  derived  the  "first  Adam"  from  :rtvoTiv  ^(ofigand  the  "sec- 
ond Adam"  from  H'^X'i'lv  Cwaav.  This  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
apostle's  own  statement. 

There  seems  then  sufficient  ground  for  holding  that  the  second 
half  of  the  verse  (45)  is  intended  neither  as  a  part  of  the  quotation 
nor  as  an  interpretative  addition  to  it.  Its  meaning  is  not  to  be  dis- 
covered from  an  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  passage,  but 
must  be  derived  from  the  language  of  the  apostle  himself.  In  the 
attempt  to  attain  it  we  cannot  do  better  than  consider  the  successive 
predicates  by  which  he  characterizes  the  "second  Adam"  and  the 
steps  in  which  he  exhibits  his  thought. 

In  the  first  place  the  relation  of  the  two  Adams  is  suggested  by 
the  very  terms  which  are  used  to  designate  them.  The  "last  Adam" 
is  Christ,  the  "first  Adam"  is  the  father  of  the  race.  Heinrici  well 
says  that  this  would  be  a  mere  riddle  of  speech  if  the  "last  Adam" 
were  conceived  to  be  historically  first.  He  must  by  the  very  terms 
of  the  thought  be  subsequent  to  the  historical  Adam.  (Cf.  Holtz- 
MANN,  op.  cit.,  p.  76).  The  attempt  has  been  made  by  various  writ- 
ers (e.  g.  Beyschlag,  op.  cit.,  p.  88;  Weiss,  Biblical  Theology,  Vol. 
I,  p.  4iof ;  Pfleiderer,  Paulinism,  Vol.  I,  p.  133)  to  explain  this  by 
saying  that  Paul  started  in  thought  with  the  historical  and  the  ex- 
alted Christ  and  went  back  to  the  pre-existent  Christ  and  so  he  was 
historically  second.  But  this  is  fallacious  reasoning.  If  the  apostle, 
from  whatever  point  he  started,  had  in  the  center  of  his  thought  at 
this  point  the  pre-existent  Christ,  and  had  forgotten  the  historical 
Christ,  he  could  scarcely  have  designated  him  as  subsequent  to  the 
historical  Adam.  And  if  the  thought  of  the  historical  Christ  so 
controlled  his  conception  as  to  render  it  natural  to  speak  of  him  as 
subsequent  to  the  historical  Adam  (as  must  be  held  by  those  whose 
view  I  am  criticizing),  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  this  differs  from  the 
idea  that  it  was  the  historical  Christ  of  whom  he  was  thinking  and 
whom  he  thus  characterized.  No  reason,  except  a  dogmatic  one, 
exists  for  denying  this. 

But  the  first  predicate  used  of  the  "second  Adam"  helps  us  to  get 
nearer  his  thought.  In  designating  him  as  a  life-giving  spirit  Paul 
can  only  be  thinking  of  the  risen  Christ.  It  is  only  Christ  exalted 
to  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  to  whom  he  applies  the  term  spirit* 


'HoLSTEN,  Evangelhim  des  Paulus,  Vol.  I.,  p.  432,  says  "because  God  is 
spirit  (that  is,  life  giving)  so  as  the  image  of  God  the  'second  Adam'  is  life 
giving."    Cf.  HoLTZMANN  op.  cit.  p.  76  and  note  2. 


l8  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

(II  Cor.  3:17,  18.  Cf.  Rom.  5:9-11;  8:10,  11).  According  to  the 
most  probable  interpretation  this  is  true  even  of  Romans  i  -.4.  He 
speaks  of  the  historical  Christ  in  very  different  terms  (II  Cor.  13:4; 
Rom.  8 :3 ;  Phil.  2  7).  Moreover  the  ^coojtoiouv  indicates  that  it  was 
at  the  resurrection  that  Christ  was  conceived  to  have  acquired  this 
character  of  a  life-giving  spirit,  (cf.  vs.  22)  as  most  interpreters 
(even  Pfieidcrcr  and  Holtzmann)  now  agree".  The  prevailing  usage 
of  this  term  in  the  New  Testament  connects  it  with  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead.  It  is  used  seven  times  in  Paul  and  in  four  instances 
clearly  has  such  a  reference  (Rom.  4:17;  8:11;  I  Cor.  15:22,  36. 
See  also  Gal.  3:21).  In  three  out  of  the  four  remaining  instances 
in  which  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  it  agrees  with  the  pre- 
vailing usage  in  Paul,  the  other  one  being  of  too  general  a  character 
to  be  of  value  in  deciding  its  meaning.  From  its  prevailing  meaning 
in  Paul  as  well  as  its  indubitable  relation  to  verse  22  (cf.  vs.  20) 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  refers  to  the  power  of  Christ  to  bring  the 
dead  to  life.  The  entire  chapter  bases  this  power  upon  the  fact 
of  his  own  resurrection.  (See  especially  vss.  I2ff.  Cf.  I  Thess. 
4:14;  I  Cor.  6:14;  II  Cor.  4:14;  Rom.  5:10;  6:4fif,  8,  9;  10:9; 
Phil.  3  :io,  20,  21 ;  Eph.  i  :2o). 

As  if  to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  he  had  this  conception  in 
mind  Paul  lays  it  down  as  a  general  principle  ;t6  .  .  .  .  T6(cf.  Peine, 
Das  Gcsetscsfreie  EvangeJium  dcs  Paulus.  p.  42)  that  the  pneu- 
matic does  not  precede  the  psychic,  but  on  the  contrary  the  psychic 
is  first  and  the  pneumatic  follows  (verse  46).  This  he  has  at  least 
implied  in  verse  45,  but  he  now  affirms  it  in  language  which  places 
his  thought  in  this  respect  beyond  doubt. 

The  occasion  for  introducing  this  statement  by  an  adversative 
(dXX')  rather  than  by  a  continuative  conjunction  is  not  easily  de- 
termined. It  is  at  least  probable  that  he  intends  expressly  to  oppose 
some  view  well  known  to  his  readers  in  which  the  consecution  of 
psychic  and  pneumatic  was  held  in  the  order  the  reverse  of  that 
given  here.  Remembering  that  this  passage  was  written  from 
Ephesus  to  Corinth  it  seems  natural  to  find  a  controversial  reference 
to  either  the  pure  Greek  conception  of  Platonism  or  to  the  hybrid 
thought  of  Alexandria  (so  Edwards,  Thackeray.  Peine),  which 
may  have  been  fairly  familiar  in  this  region  (cf.  Acts  18:24).  It  is 
not  impossible  that  the  same  type  of  thought  which  occasioned  the 
writing  of  this  chapter  on  the  resurrection,  contained  elements  of 
thought  also  which  are  here  repudiated  by  the  apostle.  In  the  light 
of  the  conditions  reflected  in  the  first  four  chapters  of  the  epistle, 
this  seems  quite  probable.    Whatever  specific  view  may  be  opposed, 


'Edwards  refers  it  to  the  incarnation  and  Godet  has  it  a  process  begin- 
ning with  the  incarnation  and  ending  with  the  resurrection. 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  19 

it  seems  important  to  bear  in  mind  two  things,  (i)  that  the  state- 
ment is  a  general  one,  and  (2)  that  it  distinctly  repudiates  the  con- 
ception which  makes  the  pneumatic  precede  the  psychic.  In  speak- 
ing of  the  psychic  he  has  particular  reference  to  the  present  histori- 
cal dispensation  as  opposed  to  the  future  time  (cf.  Gunkel^  Die 
Wirkungcn  des  Heiligen  Geistes,  p.  65)  after  the  resurrection.  This 
thought  follows  also  from  the  comparisons  contained  in  verses  48 
and  49.  For,  he  says,  just  as  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the  earthly 
Adam  in  the  present  life  so  also  in  the  future  life  we  shall  bear  the 
image  of  the  heavenly  man,  since  those  who  are  earthly  are  like  the 
earthly  man  and  those  who  are  heavenly  are  like  the  heavenly.  (Cf. 
Phil.  3:20,  21 ;  Col.  3:1-4).  It  is  Christ  who  is  risen  from  the  dead 
the  first  fruits  of  those  who  shall  be  raised  (verse  20)  whose  image 
we  shall  bear. 

This  interpretation  is  not  contradicted  by  the  fact  that  the  "sec- 
ond man"  is  said  to  be  of  heaven (e^  ovQavov  verse  47).  {Contra 
Beyschlag,  op.  cit.,  p.  78;  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  p.  410;  Edwards,  ad. 
loc).  eH  ovQavov  neither  indicates  that  the  "second  man"  is  to 
come  from  heaven  at  the  parousia  (Meyer,  Godet,  in  loco;  Milli- 
gan.  The  Resurrection,  pp.  181-89)  nor  that  as  a  pre-existent  being 
he  had  his  abode  in  heaven  whence  he  came  to  earth.  Of  the  numer- 
ous cases  in  which  the  phrase  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  writings, 
the  majority,  it  is  true,  is  clearly  of  spacial  significance.  But  there  is 
a  respectable  minority  in  which  the  phrase  describes  heaven  not  as  a 
place  from  which  a  given  person  or  thing  proceeds,  but  as  the  source 
of  its  authority  or  its  character,  the  emphasis  being  not  so  much  on 
the  source  idea  as  on  the  character  or  authority  thus  derived  (see  e. 
g.  Matt.  16:1,  21:25;  Mark  11:30;  Luke  20:4,  5).  This  is  a  well 
established  usage  also  for  other  phrases  composed  of  ex  and  a  noun 
(e.  g.  John  8:43;  I  Cor.  15:40;  Rom.  2:8;  Phil.  1:17;  and  especial- 
ly John  3:21,  8:47).  It  is  thus  quite  clear  that  e^  oiiQavou  is  not 
a  phrase  which  uniformly  connotes  the  idea  of  spacial  origin. 

But  there  are  two  passages  of  particular  importance  for  the  un- 
derstanding of  this  phrase.  The  first  is  in  Luke  11:13  where  God 
is  described  as  l\  ougavou.  Now  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  term  here  means  spacial  point  of  departure  or  origin  in  any 
sense.  The  practical  equivalent  of  the  phrase  is  found  in  various 
passages  in  the  gospel  of  Matt.  (e.  g.  5:48;  6:14,  26;  6:42;  15:13; 
18:35  5  23  :g)  where  God  is  characterized  by  the  adjective  ovQctviog 
(In  Matt.  18:35  it  is  IjtovpdviOs)-  Both  the  phrase  and  the  adjec- 
tive seem  intended  to  set  forth  the  same  idea  as  that  expressed  in 
the  phrase  ev  xcp  ovQavo)  or  oueavoigby  v/hich  God  is  described. (See 
e.  g.  Matt.  5:45;  6:1;  6:9;  7:11;  7:21;  18:14,  21).  The  second 
passage  is  II  Cor.  5  :2,  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  body  awaiting  him 


20  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

in  heaven,  as  x6  e|  ovpavoD.  No  one  who  knows  Jewish  thought  on 
this  subject,  can  for  a  moment  doubt  that  the  apostle  conceives  of 
the  body  with  which  he  expects  to  be  clothed  upon,  as  already  ex- 
isting in  heaven  and  set  apart  awaiting  his  coming.  Here  again 
the  phrase  is  the  practical  equivalent  of  the  adjective  ouQcxviOi;. 

When  now  we  look  closely  at  the  present  passage  we  see  that 
whereas  the  phrase  ex  yr\q  is  followed  by  the  adjective  yoixo?,  the 
phrase  el  oi'Qtxvoi'  stands  alone  in  the  first  clause,  the  Ltovqcivio; 
being  omitted.  This  is  significant.  It  seems  to  clearly  show  that 
e^ouQavov  is  the  correlate,  not  of  ex  y^Is  but  of  xoixo?  and  that 
ejTOVQCcvio;  in  the  next  sentence  is  an  alternative  expression  of 
equivalent  sense.  This  we  have  already  seen  to  be  true  in  other 
passages^^. 

Thus  neither  by  usage  nor  by  the  parallelism  of  thought  in  the 
present  passage  is  e^  oiiQavoi}  defined  as  a  phrase  denoting  source 
from  which,  and  the  exposition  of  the  passage  has  shown  that  such 
an  idea  is  foreign  to  the  context. 

Nor  is  it  any  objection  to  the  above  interpretation  that  it  would 
make  the  eyeveTO  in  the  first  member  of  verse  45  refer  to  an  actual 
coming  into  being,  but  in  the  second  member  to  a  change  from  one 
form  of  existence  to  another.  On  the  contrar}'  it  rather  supports 
it  as  showing  that  the  apostle  affirmed  not  that  the  "last  Adam 
wcLS  (fjv)  ,  but  that  he  became  (eyeveTo)  a  life-giving  spirit.  And 
just  as  the  eyeveTO  refers  to  the  actual  beginning  of  the  first  Adam 
so  it  designates  the  beginning  of  the  "second  Adam"  as  such  Adam. 
(See  HoLTZMANN,  op  cit.,  p.  76).  In  any  case  eyevexo  is  not  the 
prominent  word,  but  it  is  simply  the  existence  and  character  of  the 
pneumatic  body  which  is  emphasized.  We  conclude  then  that  in 
this  passage  Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  "last  Adam,"  the  "second 
man,"  refers  to  the  risen  exalted  Christ,  who  is  now  in  heaven  seated 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  who  by  his  resurrection  attained  the 
character  which  is  described  by  the  term  "last  Adam." 

But  the  contrast  between  Adam  and  Christ  is  not  confined  to  this 
passage.  As  suggested  in  the  beginning  it  is  to  be  found  also  in 
verses  20-23  of  this  same  chapter  and  in  Rom.  5:12-21.  The  light 
which  they  reflect  upon  the  particular  point  now  under  discussion 
is  not  inconsiderable.  For  our  present  purpose  the  two  may  be  con- 
sidered together.  The  argument  of  both  is  as  follows.  As  a  matter 
of  historical  fact  which  cannot  be  controverted  Christ  is  risen  from 


"If  it  should  still  be  insisted  that  the  e^  CUQavoij  is  the  correlate  of 
ex  yfj;  it  would  not  change  the  result  of  our  interpretation.  For  ex  yf)5  does 
not  express  the  place  from  which  the  earthly  man  proceeds  to  some  other 
place;  hence  the  strictest  parallelism  does  not  suggest  that  e^  ovQavoi) 
denotes  the  place  from  which  the  "second  man"  came  (to  earth). 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  21 

the  dead  and  is  the  beginning-  and  the  promise  (I  Cor.  15  :2o)  of  the 
resurrection  of  all  those  who  sleep  in  death.  For  since  (The  first 
is  the  ground  of  the  second,  cf.  I  Cor.  i  :2i,  22;  14:16;  Phil.  2:26) 
death  entered  the  world  through  man,  that  is  through  the  sin  of 
man  (I  Cor.  15:21;  Rom.  5:12,  17),  also  through  man,  that  is 
through  the  obedience  of  man  (I  Cor.  15  :2i ;  Rom.  5  -.ly,  19),  there 
shall  come  the  resurrection  (I  Cor.  15:21),  in  which  all  those  in 
Christ  shall  be  made  alive  (I  Cor.  15  :22 ;  Rom.  5  :i7,  18,  21).  Christ 

is  the  first  one  {anuQ-/ir[ eJt8iTa:Cf.  II  Thess.  2:13;  I  Cor.  16: 

15;  Rom.  8:23;  11:16;  16:5;  cf.  Sanday  and  Weiss,  in  loco) 
and  those  who  belong  to  Him  shall  arise  at  His  coming  (I  Cor. 
15  ■.27,,  cf.  I  Thess.  1:15,  16).  As  Adam  himself  first  sinned  (I  Cor. 
15:22;  Rom.  I2:i4ff)  and  thus  introduced  death  into  the  race  so 
Christ,  having  been  raised  from  the  dead,  forms  a  new  start  for  the 
race,  is  the  beginning  and  the  sample  (I  Cor.  15:20,  cf.  Col.  i  :i8; 
and  see  x'Vbbott  ad  loc.  Cf.  also  /  Clement  24;  42)  of  a  new  race 
who  through  him  shall  receive  life  and  entrance  into  the  kingdom 
(I  Cor.  15:24;  cf.  I  Thess.  1:10;  Rom.  5:16,  17,  18-21),  Adam  is 
a  type  of  Christ  (Rom.  5  :i4),  that  is,  just  as  Adam  is  the  head  of  a 
race  upon  whom  death  has  come  because  of  sin  (Rom.  5:12ft')  so 
also  is  Christ  the  head  of  a  new  humanity  (I  Cor.  15:20,  21,  23; 
Rom.  5  :i4ff.  Cf.  Weiss  in  loco)  to  whom  life  comes  because  of 
His  obedience  and  resurrection.  Not  in  their  absolute  character 
then,  but  in  the  results  for  the  human  race  of  their  respective  con- 
duct, are  Adam  and  Christ  contrasted.  And  just  as  the  "first 
Adam,"  (I  Cor.  15:45)  himself  psychical  and  earthy,  is  the  head 
of  a  psychical  race  whose  universal  experience  is  death  because  its 
head  sinned  and  brought  death  upon  it  (I  Cor.  15  :2i ;  Rom.  5  :12ft*), 
so  Christ  himself  pneumatic  (I  Cor.  15  :46),  the  "second  representa- 
tive man,"  the  heavenly  man  (verse  47),  is  by  his  resurrection  the 
head  of  a  new  race;  the  antitype  (Rom.  5  :i4)  of  the  "first  Adam." 

Christ  is  not  then  eternally  the  "second  man"  or  the  "last  Adam" 
who  at  his  resurrection  assumes  a  form  of  existence  (cf.  Holtz- 
MANN,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  y6^)  by  virtue  of  which  he  receives  life- 
giving  power,  but  it  is  only  by  virtue  of  his  resurrection  through 
which  he  is  able  to  make  alive  (at  the  resurrection)  those  who 
accept  him,  that  he  becomes  the  head  of  a  new  humanity  and  in 
consequence  receives  the  title  of  the  "second  man,"  the  "last  Adam." 
He  is  the  "second  (representative)  man"  since  as  a  matter  of  his- 
torical fact  he  is  the  second  beginner  of  the  race.  He  is  the  "last 
Adam"  inasmuch  as  in  him  humanity  is  to  attain  its  goal. 

Does  the  Philonean  conception  of  the  heavenly  man  form  a  con- 
stituent element  of  this  conception?  The  passages  which  are  usu- 
ally referred  to  as  its  source  by  those  who  hold  to  its  Philonean  origin, 
(as  e.  g.  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria,  pp.  284,  308;  Hausrath, 


22  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

New  Testament  Times:  Time  of  the  Apostles,  III,  pp.  95-103; 
ScHiELE,  Zeitschrift  fi'ir  Wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  1899,  pp.  20- 
31 ;  cf.  further  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.,  p.  55)  are  two  in  number  and 
read  as  follows. 

Leg.  all  eg.  I  12.  xal  8:i:Xaaev  6  "^eo?  tov  avOgcoirtov  /ovv  Xa|3cbv  d- 
ato  TTJ?  yfjg  xal  evecpvariaev  el?  to  jtQoacojrov  ai)Toi)  :!tvoiiv  ^wfjg  xai  §- 
yevETO  6  avOpcDJtog  el?  ^fX'H'v  ^waav.  Sittd  dvOpoSnifov  ysvi].  0  H£V 
yap  eoTiv  ouydviog  6  8e  yrjivo?.  6  fxev  ouv  ouQcxviog  dxa  xot'  eixova 
Oegv  yeyovccx;  (fdaptf]?  xalaDVo/cog-  yscoSov?  oi'oias  di^iEtoxos,  6  8e  yrj- 
ivog  EX  aJtoQd8og  vXt]?  f]v  xovv  xexXt^xev  EJtdyri*  6  8e  vov?  outos  yeco- 
8ri5  EGTi  Tcp  ovTi  xal  (pdaQToq  eI  |:ir)  6  dEo?  lnJivEuaslEv  avtcp  Suvajiiv 
dXiiOivf)5  ^a)f]S. 

/?5  c*^//".  mundi^  46.  \izxa.  xavxd  (pT)aiv  on  eVrXaoEV  6  Oeoc 
TOV  dvOQCojTOV  xoJ^v  Xa(3(i)V  djro  xvjg  yf];  xal  £V£(pvai]a£v  el;  to 
:;tQ6aa).T:ov  aiitou  n:voi]V  ^oofi?.  EvaQytoTata  xal  8ld  toi5to  jraQian]aiv 
oTi  5iacpoQd  JtajiiiEyi'iOrig  eoti  xov  te  vuv  nkaoQhxoc,  dvOQ(o.n:ov  xal 
Toi5  xat'  Eixova  Oeou  yEyovoto?  JipoTEpov.  6  |i£V  ydp  SiaJtXaaOElg 
aiodriTOS  r^hy\   [ietexcov  Jtoiritiitog,  ex  aoo^AaTo;  xal  \\^vp]c,  ovveoto)?, 

oSe  xatd   TTiv    eixova  i8£a   tig  \\  y£vog  r\  cqpQayig,  voiixo?, 

dacoiiaxog,  ovx'  ccqqev  ovxe  OfiXv,  dcpOapxo?  q)ua£i. 

It  is  argued  that  these  two  passages  show  that  Philo  looked  upon 
the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Gen.  as  respectively  recording  the 
creation  of  two  distinct  men  or  races  of  men  (Cf.  Bousset,  Die 
Religion  des  Judentnms,  p.  347).  The  man  of  Gen.  2:7  is  earthly. 
He  is  formed  later  in  time  than  the  man  of  Gen.  1 127  and  is  dis- 
tinctly inferior  to  him.  He  represents  the  natural  human  race  and 
is  its  progenitor.  The  man  of  Gen.  i  :27  is  the  heavenly  man,  not 
"formed"  but  "made"  according  to  the  image  of  God.  He  is  the 
prototype  of  the  human  race,  the  pattern  or  image  according  to 
which  the  human  race  is  made,  and  antedates  in  time  its  progeni- 
tor. From  other  passages  (e.  g.  dc  plantatione  5  and  de  miindo  3) 
it  seems  clear  that  he  thinks  of  the  logos  as  this  prototype  of  man 
and  image  of  God  (Contra,  Drummond,  Philo,  Vol.  II,  p.  275). 

Now  the  first  passage  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  inconsistent  with 
itself  if  we  allow  it  this  meaning,  for  Philo  immediately  adds  that 
the  earthly  man  must  be  taken  to  be  the  mind  (voi'g)  which  is  by 
nature  corruptible  until  God  imparts  to  it  the  power  of  true  life. 
But  the  antithesis  to  vovq  is  not  here  expressed,  and  a  closer  exam- 
ination of  the  passage  shows  that  he  probably  thought  of  the  rovq 
as  antithetic  not  to  some  other  part  of  the  earthly  man  but  to  the 
vov?   which  is  not  "infused  into  a  body,"  i.  e.  an  uncmbodied  mind 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  23 

(vovg)  the  heavenly  (unembodied)  man.  It  seems  also  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  third  view  stated  below,  which  makes  the  mind 
(voi'c;)  the  part  of  the  soul  bearing  the  image  of  God.  It  may  be 
explained  by  the  statement  of  de  plantatione  5,  and  de  miindo  3. 
(See  below).  When,  now,  we  turn  to  the  second  passage  we  find 
that  it  is  not  decisive  on  this  point.  While  it  is  clear  enough  as  a 
purely  formal  statement  concerning  the  man  "made  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground"  and  the  other  formed  "according  to  the  image  of 
God,"  it  is  quite  ambiguous  concerning  the  precise  conception  which 
Philo  at  this  point  had  in  mind.  The  statement  that  the  man  ac- 
cording to  the  imag  '^f  God  is  neither  male  nor  female  may  be  in- 
tended in  either  a  litt.al  or  figurative  sense.  Philo  has  elsewhere 
{de  opif.  mundi,  24)  said  that  the  first  (earthly)  man  was  androgy- 
nous, basing  his  interpretation  on  the  Scripture  language  itself. 
(Gen.  1:27).  His  point  of  view  in  the  present  passage  might  be 
either  ethical  or  psychological.  But  since  he  speaks  of  the  man 
made  according  to  the  image  of  God  as  an  idea  or  a  seal,  terms 
which  he  elsewhere  applies  to  the  logos,  it  seems  true  that  he  re- 
flects at  this  point  the  thought  usually  assigned  him. 

In  de  profugis  13,  14,  apparently  the  same  conception  appears. 
But  it  should  be  noticed  that  in  this  passage  just  as  in  those  already 
considered  the  conception  is  not  clear  cut  and  distinct.  For  he 
speaks  in  13  of  the  man  made  in  the  image  of  God  as  divided  into 
two  parts,  one  part  of  which  is  the  "rational  part  within  us"  made 
by  God  himself,  and  the  other  that  part  (of  the  soul)  which  is  to 
be  kept  in  subjection  made  by  the  Powers  to  whom  God  assigns 
it;  but  in  14  he  says  of  the  part  v.hich  God  himself  made  that  it  is 
"reason  destitute  of  species  and  free  from  all  admixture."  By 
this  he  apparently  thinks  of  the  archetypal  man  or  "koyoq. 

It  is  misleading,  however,  to  adduce  these  passages  alone,  as  if 
they  expressed  the  only  opinion  of  Philo  in  reference  to  the  relation 
of  the  two  passages  of  Gen.  In  a  long  section  in  "Questions  and 
Anszvers"  I.  4,  8,  the  two  men,  one  created  according  to  the  image 
of  God  and  the  other  made  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  are  again 
brought  into  contrast.  In  the  first  part  of  this  passage,  by  the  man 
"created  in  the  image  of  God"  he  means  the  "archetypal  model. . .  . 
the  word  of  God,  the  first  beginning  of  all  things,  the  original  spe- 
cies or  archetypal  idea,"  but  in  the  latter  part  he  means  the  virtuous 
man,  the  man  who  is  in  need  of  nothing  but  is  "his  own  master  by 
reason  of  his  natural  endowments."  This  latter  conception  is  ex- 
plicitly stated  in  Quis  rer.  div.  her.  11  and  12. 


24  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

evecf)Voi]o?.  Y<iQ  (piioiv  6  -^oititt];  twv  oXcov  elg  to  nQoaoynov 
avTori  -Tvoijv  ^(jof)?,  xal  EvevEto  6  avOpcojiog  Eig  xpvxiiv  ^waav.  fj 
xai  xatd  tijv  Eixova  xov  jronitof'  AoyoS  e'xei  ti'ijrcoOfivai.  12.  oSote 
6itt6v  EiSog  avOQco.Tcov,  to  [aev  Oeio)  jtvEOj^iaTi  Xoyiouq)  (3ioi'VTa)v,  to 
Se  ai'(i,aTi  xal  oagxbq  r]bo\f\  ticovtcov  ,  toijto  to  £i66s  ECfTl  jtActajxa 
yf)?,   EXEivo  be  OEiai;  Elxovog  E|-i(f>EQes  EX4iayEiov. 

With  the  thought  expressed  in  this  passage  agrees  that  of  Leg. 
alleg.  II  2 ;  SO  also  I  i6.  Two  kinds  or  races  of  men  are  mentioned, 
one  being  said  to  have  been  made  in  the  image  of  God,  and  the 
other  fashioned  out  of  the  earth.  The  former  is  expressly  declared 
to  be  the  virtuous,  the  latter  the  wicked  and  reckless  man.  See  also 
de  mutatione  nominum  4  (Wendland  3if). 

Still  another  conception  is  to  be  found  in  dc  opif.  mundi,  23; 
which  reads : 

[XETci  8t]  xaKKa  jtctvTa  xaOcxjiEQ  eXe/^Oii,  tov  avOQCOJtov  cprjai 
yeyeviiaf^ai  xqt'  eIxovc/.  Oeoij  xal  xad'  onoicoaiv.  .  ,  ti^v  8'  £|i(p£pEiov 
|.it]8eIs  Eixa^ETO)  aooiittTog  yaQaxTfJQi*  ovte  ydp  dvOQCo:n6jiO()fpoc,  6  ^Eog 
oi'TE  Oeoei8£5  to  d  •  '  Jt£io  oa)(.ia*  y\  Se  tivMy  XE^EXTai  hoxo.  tov  Tfjg 
il'vxri?  fiyEjxova  voDv,  jtQog  ydp  era  tov  twv  oXcov  exeivov  d)g  dv 
cLQ'fixvnov  6  ev  ExdaTCp  twv  xaTot  [xeqoq  djiEixoviaOii .  tqojtov  Tivd 
Oe6(;  wv  tov  qpEpovTog  xal  dyaXuaTacpopovvTO?  aitiov.  6v  ydp  Ixei 
Xoyov  6  i-iEyac  f|y£|-i03v  tv  d':n:avTi  Ttp  xoouq),  toOtov  d)s  EOixe  xal 
6  dvOQCuJiivog  yovc,  ev  dvOQCojicp. 

The  same  conception  occurs  in  de  plantatione,  5. 
6  8e  [XEyag  Mcoijofjg  ouSevI  twv  yEyovoTcovjTfj?  Xoylxfji;  i|'vxris  to 
E180S  wfAOlcoaEV,  uiX  FiJtEv  avx\\\  xov  Oeiou  xal  dopaTov  jtvEi'ij^mTog 
exeivov.  86xi^iov  Eivai  y6\iia\ia  ori|iEi(o\)£V  xal  TVJtcoOsv  aqpQayT8i 
OeoD,  fJG  6  yo.QayiXT\Q  eotIv  6  dibiog  Xoyog  EVEiTtVEvaE  ydp  q^riaiv  6  (^Eog 
E15  TO  JtQoacojcov  avToij  crrvoiiv  ^cof]?  (Gen.  2-7)  oSote  dvdyxT)  jtQo? 
TOV  EXJiE^JTOvTa  TOV  8£x6|Li£vov  d:n:£ixoviodal.  8id  xal  AsyETai  xaT* 
ELXova  Oeov  tov  d'vOQCo:rtov  y£y£vf]aOai  (Gen.  1-27)  ov  \i'\\v  xat' 
Eixova  Tivog  twv  yEyovorcav. 

Almost  the  same  words  are  to  be  found  in  dc  in  undo  3.  And  the 
same  general  conception  is  reflected  in  de  opif.  r.inndi,  47,  48,  49 
and  51 ;  and  leg.  alleg.  Ill,  31. 

An  examination  of  the  above  passages  indicates  that  Philo 
held  at  least  three  clearly  distinguishable  conceptions  concerning 
the  relation  of  Gen.  1:27  and  2:7.  (i)  The  first  group  of  pas- 
sages contains  the  conception  of  which  we  have  already  spoken  in 
their  connection,  and  it  is  only  necessary  here  to  recall  that  Gen. 
2  7  is  interpreted  of  the  progenitor  of  the  human  race,  and  i  127  of 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHKISTOLOGY  25 

the  archetypal  pattern,  the  prototype  according  to  which  the  man 
of  Gen.  2:7  as  well  as  the  whole  race  was  formed.  (2)  According 
to  the  conception  furnished  by  the  second  group  of  passages  which 
we  have  adduced,  both  Gen.  i  :27  and  2  7  are  interpreted  of  his- 
torical man.  By  this  interpretation  the  former  passage  refers  to 
the  man  of  virtue,  the  latter  to  the  man  of  passion  and  baseness. 
(3)  The  third  conception  confines  itself  to  a  single  individual  and 
distinguishes  between  different  parts  of  the  same  person.  It  is  stated 
by  Philo  that  that  part  of  the  soul  which  is  the  most  important  and  is 
called  the  mind  (voCie)  is  that  part  of  man  which  is  said  to  be  ac- 
cording to  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  By  implication  the 
passage  in  the  second  chapter  of  Gen.  (2:7)  refers  only  to  the 
mortal  part  of  the  man.  It  is  very  doubtful,  however,  whether 
Philo  would  have  carried  this  interpretation  far  enough  explicitly 
to  affirm  this  implication. 

It  is  evident  that  the  prevailing  conception  of  Philo  concerning 
Gen.  I  •.2y  and  2  7^^  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  that  of  a  "heavenly 
man"  and  an  "earthly  man,"  the  one  created  in  the  image  of  God 
and  the  other  formed  from  the  dust  of  the  ground.  Rather  the 
man  who  is  virtuous  and  the  man  who  is  base,  or  the  two  different 
parts  of  the  one  being,  viz.,  soul  and  body,  generally  figure  in  his 
thought,  even,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  to  the  point  of  incon- 
sistency and  confusion  in  the  same  passage.  In  two  passages  {de 
plantatione,  5  and  dc  mundo,  3.  Cf.  Wis.  2:23)  he  declares  explic- 
itly that  by  virtue  of  the  inbreathed  "spirit  of  life"  the  man  was 
said  to  be  in  the  image  of  God.  And  while  in  the  first  group  of 
passages  he  speaks  of  the  heavenly  man  as  the  first  ( :n;()6T8QOV )  he 
prevailingly  means  by  the  term  "first  man"  the  man  of  Gen.  27 
and  this  always  in  the  connection  where  the  man's  soul  is  regarded 
as  constituting  him  according  to  the  image  of  God.  So  de  opif. 
mitndi,  47,  48,  49,  51.  The  view  Avhicli  was  first  mentioned  appears 
not  only  without  controlling  significance  for  Philo,  but  it  may  well 
be  questioned  whether  it  exercised  any  large  influence  elsewhere, 
as  it  does  not  appear  in  any  other  writing.  On  the  contrarv,  the 
facts  indicate  that  the  influence  of  his  thought  was  along  the  line 
of  the  third  of  the  conceptions  mentioned.  See  Secrets  of  Enoch, 
30:10;  Wisdom,  1:4;  see  also  8:19,  20).  It  is  not  impossible,  yet 
not  clearly  established,  that  the  later  Rabbinic  notion  of  the  double 
formation  of  Adam  sustains  some  relation  to  it.     (Cf.  Siegfried, 


"I  ^m  largely  indebted  for  the  above  references  to  Ryle,  Philo  and  Holy 
Scripture,  pp.  3-5,  8,  9.  He  purports  to  give  all  the  passages  of  Philo  in 
which  Gen.  i  :26,  27,  and  2  -.y  are  used.  To  these  I  have  added  some  refer- 
ences of  my  own,  and  I  judge  that  the  passages  adduced  represent  the  various 
phases  of  Philo's  thought  adequately  if  not  completely. 


26  DOES  HELLENISM   COXTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

Philo.  etc.,  pp.  289-302;  ScHiELE^  ZeitscJirift  fiir  Wissenschaffliche 
Theologie,  1899,  pp.  26-31 ;  Taylor,  Sayings  of  Jewish  Fathers,  pp. 
156-58). 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  argue  against  the  influence  of  either 
the  second  or  the  third  of  the  conceptions  of  Philo  above  referred  to 
on  the  thought  of  Paul  in  I  Cor.  15:45-49.  Philo's  second  concep- 
tion is  purely  ethical  and  the  third  is  a  combination  of  ethical  and 
psychological.  That  the  fundamental  thought  of  Paul  is  neither  of 
these  is  perfectly  evident. 

That  Paul  is  not  dependent  upon  the  first  conception  of  Philo 
seems  clear  from  the  fact  that  they  differ  in  the  following  essential 
features,  (i)  To  Philo  the  heavenly  man  is  first,  but  for  Paul 
he  is  last.  (2)  Philo  regards  the  heavenly  man  as  the  t3'pe  of  the 
earthly  man  ;  Paul  reverses  this  making  the  earthly  man  the  type  of 
the  heavenly  man  (Rom.  5:14).  (3)  Philo  combines  Gen.  1:27 
with  2  7  as  a  basis  for  his  conception ;  Paul  makes  no  use  of  Gen. 
1 :27  for  the  conception  of  the  heavenly  man  and  the  fact  that  he 
uses  in  the  context  another  verse  from  Genesis  indicates  that 
he  did  not  have  in  mind  the  passage  1 127  as  a  basis  for  the 
conception  of  the  "second  Adam".  (4)  Although  Philo  regards 
man  as  bearing  the  image  of  the^.oyog  or  the  archetypal  man  {Con- 
fusion de  ling.  28;  leg.  alleg.  III.  31)  it  in  no  wise  corresponds  to 
Paul's  conception.  Philo  has  reference  to  the  "reasoning  in  us  as 
a  copy  of  the  divine  reasoning,  the  word  above  us"  (quis  rer.  div. 
haer.  48.  Cf.  confusion  de  ling.  28).  Whatever  Paul  may  say  else- 
where about  conforming  to  the  image  of  Christ,  he  here  has  in 
mind  the  fact  that  we  shall  in  the  future  life  have  a  body  like  the 
body  of  the  present  exalted  Christ  (I  Cor.  15:49;  Phil.  3:21).  (5) 
Paul  repudiates  with  unequivocal  clearness  the  general  conception 
upon  which  the  Philonic  doctrine  rests  and  effectually  declares 
thereby  his  independence  of  the  doctrine  itself,  (cf.  above  p.  i8f.) 

There  is  another  fact  to  be  mentioned  which  points  strongly  in 
the  direction  of  those  already  mentioned.  It  was  suggested  above 
that  the  passages  from  which  the  first  conception  was  drawn  were 
in  reality  not  clear  or  free  from  ambiguity.  If  one  read  beyond  the 
immediate  context  in  the  second  it  becomes  apparent  that  Philo 
gradually  leaves  this  conception  and  passes  into  the  second  named 
above,  and  in  section  48  he  expressly  says  that  "this  man,  Moses 
affirms,  was  an  image  and  imitation  of  God,  being  breathed  into 
in  his  face  in  which  is  the  place  of  the  sensations,  by  which  the 
creator  endowed  the  body  with  a  soul."  Now  in  these  words  he  is 
wavering  between  the  second  general  conception  mentioned  and 
the  thought  reflected  in  the  first  passage  quoted  from  him.  In  the 
third  passage  he  is  ambiguous  if  not  inconsistent,  and  in  the  first 
passage,  in  which  there  is  the  least  confusion  of  thought  and  cxpres- 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  2/ 

sion,  the  antithesis  between  the  heavenly  and  the  earthly  man  is 
neither  defined  with  clearness  nor  quite  consistently  maintained. 
It  seems  then  only  fair  to  say  that  this  pre-existent  heavenly  man 
was  for  Philo  largely  a  formal  term.  When  he  begins  to  interpret 
it  he  passes  (except  in  one  case)  directly  to  another  conception 
quite  unlike  it.  If  Paul  was  influenced  by  Philo  it  could  only  have 
been  in  a  merely  formal  manner.  He  must  have  chosen  to  accept 
a  purely  rhetorical  formula  rather  than  a  fundamental  idea.  In 
that  case  it  would  seem  to  admit  of  little  question  that  he  must 
have  held  the  essential  features  of  his  doctrine  antecedently  to  his 
knowledge  of  Philo  and  merely  adopted  from  Philo  the  terms  in 
which  to  express  it. 

But  the  evidence  will  scarcely  allow  us  to  suppose  that  even 
the  terms  of  his  thought  were  derived  from  Philo.  In  the  first 
place  it  is  not  at  all  clear  that  Paul  knew  of  this  conception  of  Philo, 
for  as  shown  above  his  apparent  controversial  reference  in  verse  46 
may  well  be  directed  elsewhere.  In  the  second  place  the  term  it- 
self is  not  found  in  Philo.  Philo  speaks  only  of  the  earthly  and 
heavenly  man,  but  the  fundamental  element  of  Paul's  conception 
is  exhibited  in  the  term  "second  Adam".  His  term  "heavenly  man" 
refers  to  the  risen  and  not  to  the  pre-existent  Christ.  In  the  third 
place,  it  will  shortly  appear  that  the  elements  of  this  conception 
were  derived  from  a  source  which  is  also  ample  to  explain  the 
origin  of  the  term.  It  is  consequently  gratuitous  to  seek  even  so 
much  as  that  in  Philo. 

English  commicntators  generally  (and  a  few  German)  have  as- 
sumed that  this  term  the  "second  Adam"  was  a  common  Jewish 
designation  of  the  jMessiah  and  that  we  have  here  simply  an  exhibi- 
tion of  Paul's  Jewish  learning.  (See  e.  g.  Stanley,  Corinthians; 
FiNDLAY,  Exp.  Greek  Testament,  in  loco;  even  Sanday-Headlam^ 
Romans,  p.  136,  and  Weiss  (apparently)  on  Romans  5:14.  More 
cautiously  Heinrici  and  Schmiedel  in  loco).  Recent  investiga- 
tion however  has  shown  this  opinion  to  be  quite  without  foundation 
(see  Moore  J.  B.  L.  1897,  pp.  158-161 ;  and  Schiele,  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Wissenschaftliche  Theologie,  1899,  pp.  20-31).  The  passages  which 
were  relied  upon  to  support  the  view  were  all  derived  from  Neve 
Shalom,  book  IX  (cf.  Weiss,  Romans  5:14)  a  work  by  a  Spanish 
Jew  in  the  fifteenth  century^-.  This  work  is  confessedly  a  con- 
glomerate dealing  with  a  Avide  range  of  questions  of  every  kind, 
and  is  the  merest  hodge-podge  of  philosophy,  exegesis  and  theology. 
"Aristotle  and  Cabala  and  Christian  controversy  jostle  one  another 

'"The  most  striking  similarity/  to  the  thought  of  Paul  is  to  be  found  in 
IX.  5,  fol.  150,  b. :  "The  heifer  which  the  Messiah  will  offer  will  be  an  atone- 
ment for  sin  universally,  to  do  away  transgression,  and  to  put  an  end  to  the 
sin  of  the  human  race.    As  the  first  Adam  was  the  first  in  sin  so  the  Messiah 


28  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

in  it,"  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  Christian  inliuence  explains  the 
existence  of  the  phrase  here.  It  was  not  first  quoted  for  the  pur- 
pose to  which  it  is  now  put,  but  rather  the  opposite.  The  present 
use  of  the  material  is  the  result  of  misunderstandings  on  the  part  of 
later  scholars,  and  the  persistence  of  uncritical  tradition.  (Cf. 
Moore,  o/>.  cit.,  p.  160-61  ;  Schiele,  op.  cit.,  p.  23).  Besides  this 
work,  reference  is  sometimes  made  to  another  Cabalistic  com- 
mentary on  the  Pentateuch  from  about  1500  A.  D.,  but  the  specula- 
tions which  it  contains  concerning  the  "upper"'  and  the  "lower 
Adam"  have  apparently  no  relevance  to  the  matter  here  in  ques- 
tion. Thus  the  material  which  is  generally  used  to  establish  the 
Rabbinic  doctrine  of  a  "second  Adam"  is  quite  inadequate.  It  not 
only  dates  from  the  fifteenth  century  of  our  era,  but  cannot  in  any 
true  sense  be  considered  representative  of  Jewish  tradition. 

The  attempt  to  find  the  doctrine  in  other  Jewish  sources  seems 
equally  fruitless.  Taylor  {Sayings  of  the  Jeivish  Fathers,  pp.  56- 
58)  says  that  the  conception  of  the  two  Adams  permeates  the  entire 
Midrash.  The  manner  in  which  he  speaks,  however,  is  so  vague 
as  to  render  it  very  questionable  whether  the  conception  he  has  in 
mind  is  the  one  at  present  under  investigation.  The  quotations  by 
which  he  illustrates  his  discussion  clearly  refer  to  another  matter. 
But  Ginsberg  (Article,  Adam  Kadmon,  Jeivish  Encyclopedia  I) 
ventured  the  explicit  opinion  that  the  Philonic  and  Pauline  concep- 
tions are  both  to  be  explained  as  dependent  directly  upon  the  Mid- 
rash^^.  Rut  here  again  the  logic  seems  at  fault.  The  passages 
cited  by  him  fail  to  show^  that  the  conception  of  the  Midrash  is  a 
possible  source  for  either,  even  if  it  be  supposed  to  be  of  sufficient 
antiquity  to  create  no  chronological  difficulty.  But  even  this  much 
is  a  matter  of  serious  question.  Ginsberg  himself  states  that  the 
oldest  Rabbinic  source  for  the  term  Adam  Kadmon  (first  or  orig- 
inal man)  is  Num.  R.  X.  To  argu£  from  this  the  currency  of  our 
conception  in  the  time  of  Paul  is  certainly  hazardous.  It  involves 
not  only  an  inference  which  must  span  centuries,  but  what  is  more 
violent  infers  one  term  (last  Adam)  from  the  existence  of  another 
(first  Adam). 

The  conception  which  appears  in  the  Targumic  literature  is  also 
of  quite  another  character.  The  Targum  of  Palestine  has  nothing  to 
say  of  the  creation  of  a  "first"  and  a  "second"  man  but  contains  the 


shall  be  the  last  (Adam?)  to  remove  sin  utterly."  In  IX.  8  it  reads:  "The 
last  Adam  is  the  Messiah,  as  it  is  said  he  shall  be  higher  than  Moses." 
Moore  thinks  that  the  reference  in  IX.  9  is  not  to  the  Messiah  as  the  second 
Adam  but  to  the  perfect  man  of  the  messianic  age.  "As  we  might  say  'the 
coming  man.' " 

"Clemen,  Chronologic  dcr  Pattliniscltcii  Briefc,  p.  273,  has  also  suggested 
that  we  have  here  a  simple  quotation  from  a  Midrash. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  29 

tradition  of  the  double  formation  of  the  one  man  as  follows:  (Gen. 
2:7).  "And  the  Lord  God  created  man  in  two  formations  and 
took  from  the  place  of  the  house  of  the  sanctuary  and  from  the 
four  winds  of  the  world  and  mixed  all  the  waters  of  the  world  and 
created  him  red,  black  and  white;  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
the  inspiration  (nishmetha)  of  life  and  there  was  in  the  body  of 
Adam  the  inspiration  of  a  speaking-  spirit  (leruach  mallela)  unto 
the  illumination  of  the  eyes  and  the  hearing  of  the  ears".  (Ethe- 
ridge's  Translation).  There  is  nothing  to  even  hint  at  the  other 
conception.  If  we  compare  this  with  the  earlier  Targums  (Onkelos 
and  JcrusalcmY^  it  appears  that  even  this  doctrine  was  not  an  early 
one  since  it  appears  in  neither  of  them.  The  latter  may  show  it  in 
its  incipiency,  but  without  the  later  and  fully  developed  conception 
its  presence  here  would  not  be  suspected.  The  beginning  of  such 
a  conception  is  at  least  possible  in  IV  E::ra  3 :5,  "et  imperasti 
pulveri :  et  dedit  tibi  Adam  corpus  mortuum  sed  et  ipsum  figmentum 
manuum  tuarum  erat,  et  insufflasti  in  eum  spiritum  vitae  et  factus 
est  vivens  coram  te,"  And  Apoc.  Baruch  48:46.  "For  thou  didst 
of  old  command  the  dust  to  produce  Adam."  (Cf.  I  Tim.  2:13  and 
IV  Ezra  7:116  (46).  But  upon  this  no  emphasis  should  be 
placed. 

There  is  a  passage  in  Sirach  (24:28)  that  has  hitherto  been 
overlooked  in  which  the  term  "last"  (man)  appears.  But  it  is 
evident  at  a  glance  that  this  has  no  reference  to  the  Messiah.  It 
and  its  parallel  term  the  "first"  (man)  are  intended  as  an  all  in- 
clusive expression  for  mankind  which  the  writer  thus  indicts  for 
its  ignorance  of  Wisdom.  There  is  no  direct  evidence  that  even  in 
this  sense  the  term  was  a  common  one.  Positive  evidence  that 
Sirach  had  no  thought  of  a  "first"  and  a  "second"  or  last  man  as 
two  distinct  creations  is  to  be  found  in  17:1-3  where  he  combines 
Gen.  1:17  and  2  -.y  to  express  a  single  idea. 

This  without  question  is  the  ordinary  view  of  his  age.  He  is 
the  mouthpiece  for  his  time  rather  than  an  independent  progressive 
thinker  (see  especially  3:21-24). 

The  term  "first"  man  or  Adam  is,  however,  a  rather  common 
one  in  Jewish  literature.  Its  first  occurrence  is  probably  in  Job 
15:7,  "Art  thou  the  first  man  that  was  born?"  According"  to  some 
authorities  (Budde,  Hand-Koinmentar  zum  A.  T.,  Hioh,  pp.  yy,  78) 
there  is  here  only  a  reference  to  Wisdom  and  none  to  a  "first  man." 
Others  (e.  g.  Davidson,  Cambridge  Bible,  ad  loc)  regard  it  as  an 
allusion  to  a  legendary  being-  who  antedated  the  creation  of  the 
•world  and  had  access  to  the  mysteries  of  God.    In  this  case  it  would 


"Jer.  Targ.  "And  Adam  became  a  soul  of  life."  Targ.  Onk,  "And  the 
Lord  God  created  Adam  from  the  dust  of  the  ground  and  breathed  upon  his 
face  the  breath  of  life   (lives)   and  it  became  in  Adam  a  discoursing  spirit." 


30  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

ally  itself  with  the  conception  which  lies,  according  to  the  most 
probable  interpretation,  back  of  Ezek.  28:iiff.  If  the  second  part 
of  the  parallelism  be  taken  as  determinative  on  this  point,  this  in- 
terpretation seems  at  least  probable.  But  certainly  the  most  natural 
interpretation  is  to  refer  the  words  to  Adam,  the  first  individual  of 
the  race.  This  seems  distinctly  probable  also  in  the  light  of  the 
legendary  character  which  Adam  assumes  in  Jewish  theology.  Even 
as  early  as  Sirach  (49:16)  he  was  said  to  have  been  above  every 
created  thing,  and  the  writer  of  the  Apocalypse  of  Bariich  says 
(4:3)  that  Adam  knew  the  secrets  of  God  and  that  before  his  ex- 
pulsion from  Paradise  he  was  sho>vn  the  heavenly  temple.  (Cf.  IV 
Ezra  3  :6,  also  Secrets  of  Enoch,  30 :8ff ;  Philo,  de  opif.  mundi, 
47fif.  See  also  Tennant,  The  Fall  and  Original  Sin,  pp.  I49ff, 
242ff.  For  later  Jewish  thought  see  Ginsberg,  Article,  Adam, 
Jewish  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  1,  and  Kohut,  Jezvish  Quarterly  Re- 
view, III,  pp.  231-252). 

After  Job  the  term  occurs  next  in  Sirach  in  the  passage  quoted 
above,  and  in  Palestinian  literature  perhaps  next  in  Enoch  60 :8 
where  Adam  is  referred  to  as  "the  first  man  whom  the  Lord  of 
spirits  created"  (Charles'  translation).  Its  occurrence  in  the 
Sibylline  Oracles  (Book  III,  25,  Gefifcken),  the  relevant  portions  of 
which  are  earlier  than  the  passage  in  Enoch,  as  well  as  in  the  later 
Alexandrian  writings,  Wisdom  (7:1,  lo-i)  and  Philo^^,  strongly 
suggests  that  its  currency  was  wider  during  this  period  than  its 
rather  infrequent  occurrence  in  extant  Palestinian  literature  would 
indicate. 

In  the  literature  approximately  contemporary  with  Paul  it  oc- 
curs with  greater  frequency  and  its  usage  is  well  established.  In 
the  Apocalypse  of  Bariich  56:5  occurs  the  following.  "The  trans- 
gression wherewith  Adam  the  first  man  transgressed,"  and  in  IV 
Ezra  3:21  (cf.  6:54)  we  read  "cor  enim  malignum  baiolans  primus 
Adam  transgressus  et  victus  est,  sed  et  omnes  qui  eo  nati  sunt." 
(Gunkel's  remark  concerning  the  "Urmensch"  in  Kautzsch's  Pseu- 
dcpigraphcn,  ad  loc.  is  absolutely  without  foundation).  The  same 
expression  occurs  also  in  Josephus,  Antiq.  I,  2,  3  (Niese  I,  67)  ; 
Antiq.  I.  3.  3  (Niese  I.  82)  ;  Antiq.  VIII,  3,  i  (Niese  VIII,  62y\ 
Sanhedrin  IV,  5  (Barcl.w,  Talmud,  p.  185)  is  another  witness  for 
the  expression  in  the  following  words :  "The  Holy  One,  blessed  be 
He !  stamped  every  man  with  the  stamp  of  the  first  Adam"  (Schwab 
omits  "first"  in  his  translation).  This  instance  is  all  the  more  in- 
teresting as  reflecting  the  usage  in  a  circle  other  than  that  of  the 

"de  opif.  mitndi,  47-51,  passim. 

"Cf.  I  Tim.  3:15,  and  the  Greek  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  9  (cf.  iSoa).  a 
Christian  work  of  the  second  century,  but  undoubtedly  using  Jewish  mate- 
rials (see  James,  Tc.vIs  and  Studies,  Vol.  V.,  No.  i). 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  3 1 

Apocalyptic  writers  (and  Josephiis)  and  probably  represents  an 
early  usage  in  the  Rabbinic  school. 

It  is  quite  clear,  however,  that  in  all  these  passages  there  is  no 
implied  antithesis  of  the  "first"  and  a  "second  Adam,"  but  that 
Adam  was  contrasted  in  thought  with  all  later  humanity.  This 
is  essentially  the  anthithesis  even  in  Siracli.  As  Schiele  well  says 
"If  the  term  'first  Adam'  was  frequently  used  and  the  term  'last 
Adam'  never  occurs  in  connection  with  it,  the  evidence  is  all  but 
conclusive  that  such  an  antithesis  was  never  conceived." 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  second  Adam  is  not  then  to  be  traced  to 
Philo,  nor  is  it  simply  carried  over  from  contemporary  Jewish 
thought.  It  is  to  the  latter  that  we  must  look,  however,  for  certain 
elements  which  enter  into  the  conception. 

As  indicated  above  it  is  only  in  contrast  with  the  historical 
Adam  that  Christ  receives  this  designation.  It  is  a  term  of  function 
and  not  of  nature.  It  represents  an  attempt  to  set  forth  clearly 
from  one  angle  of  vision  the  significance  of  Christ  for  those  who 
have  committed  themselves  to  Him.  Adam  as  head  of  humanity 
has  by  his  conduct  fastened  upon  it  the  experience  of  death.  The 
risen  Christ  has  by  His  resurrection  conquered  death  and  thus 
guaranteed  a  similar  experience  to  so  much  of  present  mortal  hu- 
manity as  identifies  itself  with  Him.  The  earnest  of  this  they  al- 
ready have  in  the  spirit.  He  thereby  becomes  the  second  beginner 
of  the  race,  the  head  of  a  risen  humanity,  the  second  Adam. 

Now  it  is  beyond  question  that  so  far  as  Paul  speaks  of  Adam 
and  his  significance  for  the  race,  he  derives  his  thought  from  cur- 
rent Jewish  theology  in  which  he  had  been  trained.  According  to 
an  earlier  and  somewhat  prevalent  view,  it  is  true,  the  origin  of 
sin  and  death  in  the  world  was  due  to  the  conduct  of  the  angels 
who  defiled  themselves  with  women  according  to  the  story  of  Gen. 
6:1-4".  But  by  the  time  of  Paul  this  view  had  been  largely  dis- 
placed by  one  which  found  the  explanation  of  the  introduction  of 
sin  and  death  into  the  world,  in  the  story  of  Adam's  transgression 
as  recorded  in  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis.  This  view  is  the  preval- 
ent  one  in  later  Rabbinic  thought   (cf.   Tennant,   The  Fall  and 

^'This  position  is  concisely  put  in  the  language  of  Enoch  10:8:  "The 
whole  earth  has  been  defiled  through  the  teaching  of  the  works  of  Azazel  (the 
leader  of  the  angels),  to  him  ascribe  all  the  sin."  It  is  fully  set  forth  in 
Enoch,  chaps.  6-8,  83-90,  and  is  found  also  in  54:6,  64:2,  and  69:6,  11.  It  is 
referred  to  also  with  varying  points  of  view  in  Jubilees  4:22;  5:ifif;  Testa- 
ments of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  Reuben  5 ;  Daniel  5 ;  Naphtali  3 ;  and  Levi  3. 
Sporadic  references  to  the  same  conception  appear  also  in  some  of  the  later 
writmgs.  It  receives  recognition  in  one  of  the  visions  in  the  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  (56:10-15)  and  is  probably  the  background  of  Paul's  statement  in  i 
Cor.  11:10  concerning  the  necessity  for  the  veiling  of  the  head  of  woman  in 
public.  In  Enoch  32  :6  it  seems  to  be  said  tha:  Adam  and  Eve  were  responsi- 
ble for  nothing  except  their  own  sin. 


32  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

Original  Sin,  pp.  145-176),  and  begins  to  appear  (leaving  aside  the 
account  in  Genesis)  as  early  as  the  second  century  B.  C.  To  give 
here  all  the  various  phases  of  the  general  view  which  are  reflected  in 
the  Jewish  literature  contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  Paul,  would 
not  contribute  to  the  purpose  of  this  essay^®.  Neither  would  it  be 
possible  within  the  limits  which  w'e  must  impose  upon  ourselves. 
We  need  only  notice  two  phases  of  the  general  conception,  both 
of  which  are  closely  related  to  the  thought  of  Paul. 

The  first  phase  receives  succinct  expression  in  the  Avords  of 
SiracJi  25  -.24.  We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the  thought  which 
the  writer  makes  prominent  respecting  the  responsibility  of  the 
W'Oman  in  the  FalP".  Our  chief  concern  is  with  the  two  following 
points:  (i)  that  the  transgression  of  the  first  parents  is  not  re- 
lated causally  to  the  sinfulness  of  humanity,  but  is  only  spoken  of  as 
the  first  occurrence  of  sin  among  men.  (2)  The  whole  race,  how- 
ever, is  involved  in  the  consequences  of  their  transgression,  it  being 
set  forth  as  the  cause  of  physical  death  w'hich  is  the  universal  ex- 
perience of  man. 

This  same  thought  is  found  also  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch. 
This  writing  has  been  pronounced  the  best  witness  to  the  Rabbinic 
theology  of  the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era,  now  known  to  us. 
(Cf.  Tennant,  op.  cit.,  p.  212).  The  view  of  this  writer  is  w^ell 
represented  in  the  words  (23:4)  "Because  when  Adam  sinned  and 
death  was  decreed  against  those  who  should  be  born,"  etc.  Again 
in  54:15  we  read,  "For  though  Adam  sinned  and  brought  untimely-" 
death  on  all."  And  in  56:6,  "For  owing  to  his  (Adam's)  transgres- 
sion untimely  death  came  into  being."  (See  also  17:3  ;  19:8  ;  cf.  4:3). 
This  view  which  makes  Adam  the  cause  of  physical  death  and  woes 
is  reflected  also  in  IV  Ezra  3  :7 :  et  huic  mandasti  diligentiam  unam 
tuam ;  et  praeterivit  eam,  et  statim  instituisti  in  eum  mortem  et  in 
nationibus  eius.    The  same  conception  is  found  in  the  Alexandrian 


"This  has  been  done  with  grcrit  ability  and  learning  by  Tennant,  Tlic  Fall 
and  Original  Sin,  Cambridge  University  Press.  1903.  The  fullness  of  discus- 
sion and  soberness  of  judgment  which  the  book  exhibits  place  it  easily  in  the 
front  rank  of  all  others  which  discuss  this  subject.  This  part  of  tlte  present 
paper  was  written  before  I  had  seen  his  book  and  I  am  gratified  to  find  it 
supported  by  his  work. 

"Cf.  I  Cor.  11:2-3;  I  Tim.  2:13-15;  4  Mace.  18:10;  At>ocalypsc  of  Baruch 
48:42;  Gospel  of  James  13.  For  a  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the  tempta- 
tion for  Eve  and  her  prominence  in  the  transaction  as  this  was  conceived  by 
some  Jewish  writers,  see  Tennant,  op.  cit.  pp.  2o8fF;  Thackeray,  The  Rela- 
tion of  St.  Paul  to  Contemporary  Jewish  Thought,  pp.  50-57.  Cf.  Josephus 
Antiq.  I.  1:4  (Niese  I.  49). 

^^Charles,  ad  loc.  thinks  that  the  use  of  the  word  "untimely"  indicates 
that  the  writer  of  this  passage  thought  only  that  Adam's  sin  brought  prema- 
ture death,  but  this  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  standing  epithet  of 
death.     See  especially  the  next  passage,  "came  into  being." 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  33 

literature  as  e.  g.  the  Secrets  of  Enoch  30:16;  Wisdom  2  -.24,  both  of 
which  are  at  this  point  probably  a  reflection  of  Palestinian  thought. 
In  view  of  these  and  other  passages  yet  to  be  noticed  Tennant  seems 
amply  justified  when  he  remarks  that  "in  all  schools  of  Jewish 
thought  the  first  parents  of  the  race  came  to  be  regarded  (soon 
after  SiracJi)  as  the  cause  to  their  descendants  of  physical  woes 
and  death." 

But  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Barnch  we  are  introduced  to  a  concep- 
tion which  goes  beyond  this.  Thus  in  48 142,  43,  we  read  "O  Adam, 
what  hast  thou  done  to  all  those  who  are  born  from  thee?  and 
what  will  be  said  to  the  first  Eve  who  hearkened  to  the  serpent? 
For  all  this  multitude  are  going  to  corruption,  nor  is  there  any 
numbering  of  those  whom  the  fire  devours."  This  it  should  be  no- 
ticed does  not  necessarily  advance  beyond  the  passage  quoted  above 
from  Sirach,  as  respects  the  question  of  the  relation  of  Adam's  sin 
to  that  of  his  descendents.  On  that  matter  it  is  silent.  But  it  de- 
velops the  second  conception  reflected  in  that  passage.  Instead  now 
of  confining  the  results  of  Adam's  sin  to  the  prevalence  of  physical 
death,  Adam  is  regarded  as  responsible  also  for  the  future  punish- 
ment and  woes  of  humanity,  the  great  majority  of  which  meets 
such  a  fate.  This  thought  seems  to  involve  some  theory  of  the 
solidarity  of  the  race  and  the  transgression  of  its  head.  That  th( 
writer  does  not  have  in  mind  any  theory  respecting  the  inheritance 
of  an  evil  or  fallen  nature  from  Adam  which  left  posterity  helpless 
appears  from  the  context.  For  in  vss.  46  and  47.  (cf.  40)  he  clearly 
makes  the  punishment  which  he  has  just  referred  to  dependent 
upon  the  voluntary  transgression  of  each  individual.  He  seems  to 
regard  man  as  conditionally  liable  to  future  punishment  because  of 
the  transgression  of  the  first  parents  in  Paradise,  the  state  of  each 
individual  being  actually  determined  by  his  voluntary  sin  and  sin- 
fulness. In  56:1  the  writer  seems  to  regard  human  nature  as  hav- 
ing been  at  least  partially  deranged  by  the  fall,  and  the  condition 
of  men  after  death  as  somewhat  affected.  It  is  not  explicitly  stated 
that  this  derangement  affected  the  entire  nature,  and  probably  was 
not  so  conceived.  At  the  same  time  it  shows  that  Paul's  advance 
at  this  point  is  not  unnatural. 

This  advance  is  even  more  emphatic  in  lY  Ezra  than  in  Bariich. 
Indeed  we  have  in  this  writing  "the  most  serious  and  impassioned 
struggle  with  the  problem  of  sin  and  evil  from  a  Jew  of  this 
period"  (Porter,  Yale  Studies,  p.  146).  It  is  sufficient  for  our 
purpose  to  quote  only  one  passage.  Thus  7:116-20  reads,  Et  re- 
spondi  et  dixi :  hie  sermo  mens  primus  et  novissimus,  quonian 
melius  erat  non  dare  terram  Adam,  vel  cum  jam  dedisset  coercere 
eum  ut  non  peccaret.  Quid  enim  prodest  omnibus  in  praesenti 
vivere  in  tristitia  et  mortuos  sperare  punitionem  ?    O  tu  quid  fecisti 


34  1X)ES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

Adam?  si  enim  tu  peccasti,  non  est  factum  solins  tuns  casus  sed  et 
nostrum  qui  ex  te  advenimus.  Quid  enim  nobis  prodest  si  promis- 
sum  est  nobis  immortale  tempus,  nos  vero  mortalia  opera  egimus? 
Et  quoniam  praedicta  est  nobis  perennis  spes,  nos  vero  pessime  vani 
facti  sumus?  (See  the  continuation  of  the  passage  and  also  espe- 
cially 3:21-26;  7:iiff).  If  we  compare  the  passages  quoted  with 
those  already  referred  to  and  others  (e.  g.  3:8,  12.  13.  2off,  35,  36; 
4:30,  39;  7:68;  8:35)  it  becomes  apparent  immediately  that  in  the 
main  we  have  the  usual  Jewish  view  of  the  beginning  of  death  and 
sin,  and  that  it  differs  principally  in  being  a  further  development 
along  the  lines  already  indicated-^.  As  in  the  single  passage  from 
the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  we  have  here  the  future  punishment  of 
sinners  connected  with  the  transgression  of  Adam.  In  just  what 
way  this  is  conceived  is  again  left  unexplained.  But  there  is  hard- 
ly reflected  the  conception  of  the  inherited  evil  nature  from  Adam 
in  consequence  of  the  Fall--. 

Into  further  discussion  of  the  doctrine  of  sin  as  reflected  in  IV 
Ezra  we  need  not  enter-^.  It  is  clear  that  for  its  beginning  it  is 
traced  to  the  transgression  of  Adam  and  Eve.  Its  continuance  in 
posterity  is  due  to  the  fact  that  from  the  beginning  an  evil  seed  was 
in  humanity,  which  voluntarily  chose  to  act  in  a  sinful  manner. 

When  now  we  look  for  the  fundamental  conception  of  which  all 
these  various  views  are  but  phases,  we  find  it  to  be  that  Adam  is 
the  head  of  the  race  and  that  as  such  his  transgression  involves 
serious  consequences  affecting  all  his  posterity.  It  is  uniformly  re- 
garded as  the  cause  of  physical  death,  and  in  the  time  of  Paul  was 
perhaps  generally  conceived  as  affecting  the  condition  of  humanity 
after  death.  That  it  involved  also  the  transmission  of  a  deranged 
nature  was  at  least  beginning  to  be  a  matter  of  speculation.  It  is 
true  that  this  is  not  a  uniform  conception ;  for  even  those  writings 
which  reflect  it  afiirm  also  individual  responsibility-*.     But  it  is  no 


^'See  for  a  different  interpretation  Charles,  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch, 
pp.  91-94  and  p.  LXX.  His  comparison  of  the  views  of  Baruch  and  iv  Ezra 
on  this  point  is  unusually  one  sided  and  incorrect. 

"Charles,  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  p.  93  and  p.  LXX.,  thinks  that  iv  Ezra 
clearly  teaches  inherited  sinfulness.  He  connects  it  with  the  later  Rabbinic 
doctrine  of  the  yecer.    He  is  correct  in  this,  but  he  misinterprets  both. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  evil  impulse  which  is  reflected  in  this  work  has  been 
carefully  discussed  by  Porter,  op.  cit.  pp.  146-52,  and  Tennant,  op.  cit.  pp.  220- 
232,  has  discussed  the  matter  fully  from  a  more  general  point  of  view. 

"e.  g.  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  54:15.  "For  though  Adam  sinned  and 
brought  untimely  death  on  all,  yet  those  who  were  born  from  him  each  of 
them  has  prepared  for  his  own  soul  torment  to  come  and  again  each  of  them 
has  chosen  for  himself  glories  to  come."  54:19.  "Adam  is  therefore  not  the 
cause  save  of  his  own  soul,  and  each  one  of  us  has  been  the  Adam  of  his  own 
soul."  Cf.  iv  Ezra  4:36IT;  7:48;  8:59ff;  9:ioff;  Psalms  of  Solomon  9:7-9  (cf. 
Ryle  and    James    Introduction,    p.   i)  ;    Sirach    I5:i4ff;    Jubilees  5:12-16; 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  35 

less  true  that  the  double  conception  is  to  be  found  in  Paul.  (See 
Rom.  i:i8ff;  77-25;  3:6,  19;  I  Cor.  4:13;  6:2;  11:32)-^  There 
is  no  reasonable  ground  for  denying  that  Paul  derived  his  general 
conception  from  Judaism. 

Nor  is  the  contrast  between  Adam  and  the  Messiah  unknown  to 
Jewish  theology.  In  later  Jewish  thought  we  have  expressions  in 
which  it  is  clearly  set  forth.  Thus  in  Bereschith  Rabba,  Chaps.  12, 
14  "As  soon  as  the  first  man  sinned  everything  became  perverted 
and  will  no  more  return  to  order  until  the  Messiah  comes."  Or 
again  in  Midrash  R.,  Psalm  17:15  "Only  when  he  shall  arise  who 
is  formed  in  thy  image,  the  Messiah,  shall  Adam  behold  thy  face." 
(Cf.  KoHUT,  op.  cit.,  p.  248;  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times,  etc.,  I. 
pp.  i75ff.) 

But  fortunately  we  do  not  have  to  depend  upon  inference  from 
later  Rabbinic  theology.  In  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patri- 
archs, Levi  18:19-24,  especially  22ff,  we  have  a  very  striking  pas- 
sage. 

19.  xai  oiix  Eatai  8ia5o>T)  aiitoij  etc  yEvedgxal  ysvedg  'iwqxov  aicovog 

20.  Hal  knl  Tfjg  leQcoaiJvTis  aiitoij  exAElilJEi  Jtaaa  a\iaQxio. 

21.  xai  01  dvoj.iol  xatajtaiJOGvaiv  sig  xaxd. 

22.  xai  ye  avxoz  otvoilei  xdq  %vQaq  xov  jiaQahziaov 

23.  xai  anoaxr\azi  xr\\  djteiXoiJoav  QOfxq^aiav  xatd  toO  'A6d[x. 

24.  xai  Scoaei  xolc,  ayioic,  (payelv  ex  xou  \v\ov  Tf)?  ^cof]g.  26 

The  significance  of  this  passage  in  Levi  18  is  greatly  increased 
by  the  fact  that  it  not  only  is  early  (Bousset  and  others  regard  it 
as  IMaccabean,  certainly  with  much  ground)  but  it  presents  pre- 
cisely the  contrast  that  is  found  in  Paul.  A  comparison  of  Enoch 
85 :3  with  90  -.T^y  discovers  in  those  chapters  essentially  the  same 
conception.  Both  Adam  and  the  Messiah  are  symbolized  by  the 
same  animal,  the  white  bull,  and  the  conditions  which  first  existed 
with  Adam  are  conceived  as  being  restored  by  the  Messiah.  Al- 
though no  other  passage  so  explicit  can,  perhaps,  be  cited  in  con- 
temporary Jewish  literature,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  suppose  that 
the  conception  was  confined  to  these  two  writers.    We  have  already 

Assumption  of  Moses  I2:4ff.  See  also  Enoch  32:6;  gS^flf;  Baruch  21:11; 
2  Mace.  7  ."32-34. 

"'Just  how  Paul  harmonized  the  two  conceptions  we  need  not  here  inquire. 
Pfleiderer  considers  that  Paul  did  not  attempt  a  harmonization  but  held  the 
two  points  of  view  even  though  they  are  contradictory.  The  method  by 
which  they  were  harmonized  in  Judaism  may  be  seen  in  iv  Ezra  3:22; 
Apocalypse  of  Baruch  18:1:  48:42-48;  54:15.  Cf.  Jubilees  5:12-16;  Josephus 
Atit.i^M,  3,  and  Pirke  Ahoih  3:15.  "Everything  is  foreseen  by  God,  though 
freedom  of  choice  is  given  to  man." 

^'Quoted  by  Bousset  in  the  Zcitschrift  fiir  Neiitestamcntliche  IVissenschaft, 
1900,  pp.  159-173-  Cf.  also  p.  2i6fff.  The  Greek  of  the  Testaments  is  inac- 
cessible to  me. 


36  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

shown  that  by  the  betjinning  of  tlie  Christian  era  the  present  unde- 
sirable condition  and  destiny  of  humanity  was  held  to  be  due  to  the 
transgression  of  Adam.  It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  particular  pas- 
sages (see  a  classic  one,  Psalms  of  Solomon  17)  to  show  that  all 
these  conditions,  it  was  held,  would  be  reversed  for  the  righteous 
when  the  Messiah  and  his  kingdom  should  appear.  The  contrast 
is  then  a  constant,  even  if  latent,  element  of  Jewish  thought  and  its 
expression  is  natural  to  a  writer  to  whose  purpose  it  contributed. 

In  so  far  then  as  the  elements  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  sec- 
ond Adam  are  to  be  sought  in  outside  sources,  they  are  derived  di- 
rectly from  contemporary  Judaism.  This  gave  to  him  (i)  Adam 
the  "first  man"  (Adam),  the  progenitor  of  the  race.  (2)  Adam 
the  head  of  the  race  and  responsible  for  the  introduction  of  death 
as  an  experience  of  the  race.  (3)  The  contrast  between  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  sin  and  the  results  of  the  activity  of  the  Mes- 
siah. At  the  most  these,  however,  are  only  contributing  elements 
to  a  doctrine  quite  otherwise  founded  and  independently  held.  They 
suggest  a  terminology  and  the  form  of  expression  for  his  funda- 
mental conception.    They  do  not  furnish  the  essential  content. 

His  own  experience  is  the  decisive  factor  in  the  development  of 
the  conception.  It  was  his  experience  on  the  way  to  Damascus  that 
convinced  him  that  Jesus  was  risen  from  the  dead  (I  Cor.  15:8; 
9-1 ;  Gal.  I  :i ;  i  :i6;  II  Cor.  4:4-6),  a  conviction  which  was  corrob- 
orated and  strengthened  by  the  testimony  of  the  other  disciples  (I 
Cor.  15:3-7).  It  was  also  his  unwavering  conviction  of  this  fact 
that  gave  him  hope  for  resurrection  unto  life  for  others  (I  Cor. 
15  -.12-19;  6:14;  II  Cor.  4:14;  I  Thess.  4:14;  Phil.  3:10,  11,  20,  21  ; 
see  also  Rom.  4:24,  25;  5:10,  21;  6:4,  7-10,  22,  2^  et  al.).  He  be- 
lieved that  God  would  raise  up  those  who  had  faith  in  Christ  be- 
cause He  had  raised  Christ,  and  in  I  Cor.  15:12-19  he  declares  ex- 
plicitly "If  Christ  hath  not  been  raised  our  preaching  is  vain,  your 
faith  is  also  vain,  and  they  which  are  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  have 
perished."  But  Christ  was  to  him  not  only  the  promise  of  a 
resurrection  for  others,  he  was  also  the  "beginning",  "the  first-born 
among  many  brethren,"  "the  very  first"  sample  of  the  others.  (I 
Cor.  15:20-23;  Rom.  8:29;  Col.  1:18).  It  was  by  virtue  of  the 
fact  that  Christ  was  this  "beginning",  this  "first  born  among  many 
brethren."  this  originator  and  guarantee  of  a  risen  humanity  that 
he  was  for  Paul  the  "second  (representative)  man,"  the  "last  (per- 
fect) Adam."  His  doctrine  was  based  on  a  fact  given  in  his  own 
experience.  The  doctrine  itself  was  a  product  of  his  own  reflective 
thought ;  the  formal  mould  in  which  it  was  expressed  was  suggested 
by  contemporary  Jewish  theology.  Both  terms,  the  "last  Adam" 
and  the  "second  man"  are  Paul's  own  contribution  to  the  termin- 
ology necessary  to  set  forth  his  conception. 


II. 

PRE-EXISTENCE. 

The  preceding  discussion  has  shown  that  Paul's  doctrine  of 
Christ  as  the  "second  Adam"  was  in  no  way  connected  with  or  in- 
fluenced by  the  idea  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ.  The  exckision 
of  the  latter  idea  from  that  doctrine  is  not  to  be  understood,  how- 
ever, as  a  denial  to  him  of  such  a  conception.  That  he  believed  in 
the  pre-existence  of  Christ  there  can  be  no  doubt-^  Nor  does  it 
seem  necessary  to  argue  now  that  that  pre-existence  was  conceived 
by  him  as  actual  rather  than  ideal.  This  is  granted  by  interpreters 
of  all  schools  and  may  be  considered  as  established  beyond  ques- 
tion^^  So  much  cannot  be  said,  however,  as  respects  the  conditions 
of  Christ's  pre-existent  state  and  the  form  under  which  it  was 
conceived.  An  investigation  of  that  phase  of  the  apostle's  thought 
is  the  next  step  in  our  discussion. 

The  passages  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ  is  either  explicitly  taught  or  implied,  are:  Gal.  4:4;  i  Cor. 
8:6;  10:4;  2  Cor.  8:9;  Rom.  8:3;  and  especially  Phil.  2 :5-8-». 
It  is  demanded  also  for  the  explanation  of  the  Christological  sec- 
tions of  Colossians  and  Ephesians. 

When  these  passages  are  scrutinized  it  quickly  becomes  clear 
that  they  fall  into  groups,  i  Cor.  8:6,  10:4,  and  the  material  in 
Colossians  and  Ephesians  deal  with  the  function  of  Christ  rather 
than  the  conditions  and  form  of  his  pre-existent  state.  Their-  con- 
tribution to  the  topic  at  present  under  discussion  is  not  large  and 
they  will  be  discussed  later  in  the  proper  place.     When  these  are 

"Cf.  especially  Bevschlag,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  78;  Holtzmann,  op  cit.,  p.  82, 
and  note  3. 

'^Gilbert,  in  his  latest  book,  The  First  Interpreters  of  Jesus,  pp.  31-40, 
still  holds  that  Paul  nowhere  teaches  more  than  an  ideal  pre-existence  of 
Christ. 

"Emphasis  is  also  sometimes  laid  on  other  passages  in  the  epistles  as 
e.  g.  I  Cor.  11:3  (see  Pfleiderer,  Urchristenthwn,  2d  Ed.  I.  pp.  227ff),  but 
without  sufficient  warrant.  This  passage  does  not  contain  even  a  suggestion 
of  the  idea  of  pre-existence,  but  refers  to  the  risen  Christ.  Vincent  lays 
stress  on  i  Cor.  1:24;  10:9;  Rom.  10:6.  They  may  be  disregarded.  _i  Tim. 
I  :i5  may  most  naturally  be  interpreted  as  reflecting  the  idea  of  pre-existence, 
but  the  authenticity  of  the  pastorals  is  so  doubtful  that  I  prefer  to  exclude 
them  from  discussion  altogether.  This  may  be  done  all  the  more  easily  since 
their  contribution  to  New  Testament  thought  is  not  in  the  line  of  Christology. 

37 


38  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

excluded  from  consideration  there  remain  to  us  four  others.  Care- 
ful attention  discovers  that  these  also  naturally  fall  into  two  pairs, 
the  first  pair  consisting  of  Gal.  4:4  and  Rom.  8:3,  and  the  second 
of  2  Cor.  8 :9,  and  Phil.  2  :5-8,  the  basis  of  division  being  the  clear- 
ness with  which  they  reflect  the  idea  of  prc-existence,  and  the 
definiteness  of  their  indication  of  its  conditions.. 

The  first  pair  both  agree  in  the  characterization  of  Jesus  the 
Christ  as  the  son  of  God.  This  term  does  not  in  itself  of  neces- 
sity connote  pre-existence.  Paul  uses  the  term  about  17  times 
and  for  him  it  appears  to  express  three  ideas.  It  designates  Christ 
as  (i),  the  object  of  God's  love,  (Rom.  5:10;  8:32,  cf.  Rom.  9:26), 
(2),  as  morally  like  God  (Rom.  8:3;  8:29;  Gal.  4:4,  6).  (3),  as 
God's  representative  (Rom.  1:2,  4,  9;  i  Cor.  1:9;  i  Thess.  1:10). 
Other  passages  seem  to  reflect  in  part  all  three  ideas. 

The  term  is,  then,  a  religious  one.  It  is  used  to  describe  Christ's 
peculiar  relation  to  God.  Its  content  seems  to  be  wholly  within  the 
moral  realm.  If  we  attempt  to  distinguish  between  the  content  of 
sonship  and  the  basis  of  sonship  at  this  point,  Paul  will  be  found 
to  give  no  hint  of  the  ultimate  basis  of  that  sonship  in  any  context 
where  the  term  itself  is  used.  In  Christian  thought  previous  to 
Paul  it  occurs  overwhelmingly  in  a  moral  sense"'". 

The  few  passages  in  Luke  (see  in  the  last  note)  in  which  it 
bears  another  meaning  have  no  relation  to  Paul's  thought.  The 
term  itself  does  not,  then,  carry  the  idea  of  pre-existence. 

Nor  does  the  verb  in  either  passage  even  when  the  subject  is 
God,  of  necessity  imply  the  pre-existence  of  the  person  who  is  the 
object  of  the  action.  This  seems  clear  from  the  fact  that  both 
words  are  used  in  speaking  of  those  Avho  have  come  forward  as 
messengers  of  God.  Thus  jtenjtco  is  used  of  John  the  Baptist 
(John  1:33)  and  of  Jesus  (John  4:34;  5:23,  24,  30,  37;  7:16;  cf. 
Luke  16:24,  27;  20:11,  12,  13.  See  also  Thayer).  In  both  cases 
the  emphasis  is  upon  the  representative  character  of  the  one  men- 
tioned. His  mission  and  not  his  origin  fills  the  circle  of  mental 
vision.     It  is  true  that  this  cannot  so  certainly  be  said  of  such  pas- 


'"It  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  outside  of  Paul  in  four  different  senses, 
(i).  In  the  creative  sense,  distinguishing  tlie  person  as  one  who  owes  his 
existence  to  the  creative  power  of  God  (Luke  1:35;  3:38).  (2).  In  an  af- 
fectional  or  elective  sense,  marking  the  person  as  the  object  of  divine  love 
and  approval,  or  as  sustaining  intimate  communion  with  God  (Matt.  11:27; 
17:5;  27:40;  John  3:16,  17;  3:35;  5:19:  11:4)-  (3)-  As  connoting  likeness 
to  God,  as  a  son  is  like  a  father,  a)  moral  likeness  (Matt.  5:9,  45;  Luke  6:36; 
John  1:12;  14:7,  9);  b)  likeness,  not  identity,  in  mode  of  existence  (Luke 
20:36.  Cf.  John  1:14,  18).  (4).  In  the  official  or  theocratic  sense,  denoting 
one  as  exercising  authority  for  God.  The  term  is  hardly  equivalent  to  Mes- 
siah, but  describes  rather  the  basis  of  mcssiahship  (Mark  3:11;  5:";  14:61; 
Matt.  8:29;   16:16;  26:23;  Luke  8:28;  John  5:22-27). 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  39 

sages  as  Wisdom  9:io;i7;  12  125  ;  16:20,  but  it  should  also  be  noted 
that  the  thought  is  rendered  definite  in  these  passages  (except 
12:25)  by  ^  genitive  phrase  and  not  by  the  verb  itself. 
e^ajioateXAco,  etymologically  meaning  to  send  away  from  oneself, 
might  seem  to  present  a  stronger  claim  for  such  a  usage  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact  it  does  not.  It  is  used  frequently  in  the  Septuagint 
in  speaking  of  prophets  or  others  as  messengers  of  Jehovah  to  the 
people  (i  Kings  10:22;  Jer.  7:25;  Zech.  4:9;  7:12;  8:10;  2  Chr. 
36:15;  Ps.  104:26;  151:4;  Mai.  3:1)  in  which  any  thought  other 
than  that  of  ambassadorship  seems  all  but  excluded.  The  same 
usage  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  (See  John  i  :6;  Acts  22:21 ; 
I  Cor.  I  :i7^^).  These  facts  warrant  us  in  saying  that  the  idea  of 
pre-existence  must  be  sought  elsewhere  than  simply  in  the  verb 
which  is  used. 

Nor  are  we  left  long  in  doubt  as  to  how  it  is  to  be  obtained.  An 
examination  of  each  passage  clearly  shows  that  in  both  the  apostle 
thinks  of  some  change  having  occurred  in  the  "son"  when  he  was 
sent  into  the  world  on  his  mission  to  men. 

In  Romans  (8:3)  he  is  said  to  have  been  sent  in  the  likeness  of 
sinful  flesh  and  it  does  not  admit  of  question  that  the  assumption  of 
this  flesh  of  sin  was  conceived  as  coincident  with  his  sending.  It 
is  true  that  the  w-ords  are  capable  of  another  interpretation.  If  it 
were  clearly  established  on  independent  grounds  that  the  apostle 
did  not  believe  in  the  pre-existence  of  Christ,  and  regarded  his  son- 
ship  as  based  on  his  ethical  character  and  likeness  to  God,  as  a  his- 
torical person  and  wholly  imconnected  with  metaphysical  considera- 
tions, this  passage  could  easily  be  adjusted  to  such  a  thought.  The 
use  of  the  term  son  would  involve,  then,  a  mental  prolepsis  and 
the  thought  would  really  be  a  form  of  adoptionism.  But  this  is 
quite  contrary  to  the  apostle's  general  thought,  and  has  no  support 
in  any  passage  in  the  epistles.  If  this  passage  were  unique  in  Paul 
it  could  not  be  regarded  as  conclusive  for  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence  but  as  he  held  that  doctrine  there  is  no  reason  for  ex- 
cluding it  here.  He  can  have  reference  here  to  but  one  thing  and 
that  is  the  appearance  of  the  son  who  already  existed  in  the  likeness 
of  human  flesh. 


^'Of  course  the  abstract  possibility  that  these  passages  are  in  a  measure 
a  rejection  of  a  general  doctrine  of  pre-existence  is  worthy  of  some  con- 
sideration. This  seems  all  the  more  plausible  since  the  New  Testament  pas- 
sages may  in  some  measure  be  said  to  reflect  some  acquaintance  with  Alex- 
andrianism,  in  which  such  a  doctrine  in  some  form  certainly  existed.  But  the 
Septuagint  shows  a  well  established  usage,  as  above  indicated,  from  which 
the  notion  is  unquestionably  absent,  and  it  seems  unnecessary  to  seek  further 
for  an  explanation  of  the  New  Testament  passages  which  readily  yield 
themselves  to  this   one. 


40  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

Now  it  were  difficult  to  find  a  reason  for  mentioning  the  fact 
that  the  son  was  sent  in  the  hkeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin  if  he  did  not 
think  of  it  as  involving  a  change  from  some  other  mode  of  exist- 
ence. Thus  there  is  involved  not  only  the  thought  of  a  pre-existent 
state,  but  that  state  is  at  least  suggested  to  have  been  different  from 
the  historical  one.  The  choice  of  di^iapTia?  as  characteristic  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  implication  that  his  flesh  only  resembled  flesh  of 
sin  and  was  not  actually  sinful  (cf.  8:3b)  seems  clearly  to  reflect 
the  conception  that  the  assumption  of  such  a  mode  of  existence 
involved  humiliation.  We  are  thus  led  to  the  view  that  even  in 
this  passage  the  prehistorical  state  of  Christ  was  conceived  as  dis- 
tinctly above  the  human.  Beyond  this  either  in  definiteness  or  clear- 
ness we  may  not  go^-. 

In  Gal.  (4:4)  much  the  same  conception  is  reflected.  As  indi- 
cated above,  the  verb  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the  idea  of  pre- 
existence^^.  But  as  in  the  Romans  passage  it  is  rather 
the  whole  context  together  which  contains  the  thought. 
The  statement  that  he  "became  from  woman"  seems 
pointless  unless  it  is  regarded  as  in  this  case  something 
unexpected  and  peculiar.  To  make  such  a  statement  concerning 
a  merely  human  personality  would  be  exceedingly  trite.  Even  if 
all  human  souls  were  regarded  by  the  apostle  as  pre-existent  (and 
this  cannot  be  shown)  the  case  would  be  the  same.  The  coming  of 
the  son  into  the  human  race  by  the  ordinary  method  of  birth  as 
well  as  the  fact  that  he  became  a  member  of  the  Jewish  nation  (cf. 
Rom.  1 :4,  and  Sanday-Headlam,  ad  he.)  seem  to  the  apostle  wor- 
thy of  comment.  This  could  hardly  be  true  unless  he  thought  of  it 
as  involving  not  only  the  previous  existence  of  the  son,  but  also 
a  change  in  the  condition  and  mode  of  his  existence.  It  is  quite  evi- 
dent also  that  he  regards  this  historical  existence  as  a  humiliation. 
We  are  thus  led,  as  in  the  previous  passage,  to  find  the  apostle  im- 
plying that  in  his  prehistorical  state  Christ  was  distinctly  above  the 
human.  But,  as  in  the  previous  passage,  the  words  afford  no  war- 
rant for  any  statement  beyond  this. 

When  we  turn  to  the  second  pair  of  passages  we  find  ourselves 
on  somewhat  more  definite  ground.  The  fact  of  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ  is  altogether  assumed  as  familiar  even  to  the  apostle's 


"We  perhaps  ought  to  include  Rom.  10:6  at  this  point.  It  reflects  the 
peculiar  Rabbinic  methods  of  interpretation  and  the  thought  is  obscure.  In 
any  case  it  tells  us  nothing  in  addition  to  that  already  suggested.  Christ  is 
conceived  as  having  been  on  high  and  as  having  come  down ;  that  is,  as  having 
pre-existed  in  a  higher  state  before  his  historical  life.  Cf.  S.\nday-He.\dl.\m, 
ad  loc. 

"Most  writers  seem  to  use  it  so.  See  e.  g.  Lipsius  ad  loc.  Holtzmann 
op.  cit.  II,  p.  82,  Stevens,  Nczv  ^Testament  Theology,  p.  392,  note  2. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  4I 

readers  and  from  the  spirit  manifested  by  Christ  in  changing  from 
that  pre-existent  state  to  the  historical  one,  the  apostle  draws  what 
is  to  him  evidently  a  very  obvious  practical  lesson. 

According  to  2  Cor.  8:9,  it  was  a  distinct  act  of  grace  on  the 
part  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  due  to  his  love  for  men,  that  he  came  to 
live  among  them.  Though  this  life  was  fraught  with  rich  spiritual 
consequences  for  others  it  was  for  him,  in  comparison  with  his  pre- 
vious estate,  one  of  distinct  poverty^*.  Before  coming  to  the  earth 
he  had  enjoyed  such  privileges  and  such  a  life  as  constituted  real 
riches.  Just  what  this  or  these  were  is  not  indicated,  but  of  what- 
ever character,  the  apostle  assumes  them  to  be  as  well  known  to 
his  readers  as  to  himself. 

The  thought  reflected  in  2  Cor.  is  expressed  in  Phil.  2  :5-8  much 
more  fully  and  definitely.  He  clearly  sets  forth  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  estate  of  the  pre-existent  and  the  historical  Christ,  and 
represents  the  latter  as  a  distinct  humiliation^^.  The  assumption  of 
the  form  of  a  servant  and  likeness  of  man  (cf.  Rom.  8:3)  and  the 
attendant  experiences  is  for  the  apostle  the  supreme  example  of 
humility,  for  it  meant  the  exchange  of  the  highest  conceivable  state 
for  the  lowest.  What  that  pre-existent  state  was,  he  distinctly  indi- 
cates in  the  phrase  ev  [lOQcpfj  dsou.  This,  however,  itself  demands 
careful  definition.  ' 

Much  has  been  written  on  the  lexical  significance  of  the  word 
|.iOQq)Ti ,        and  its  relation  to  f^XiU^"  with  which  it  is  here 

associated.  The  excursus  of  Lightfoot  in  his  Commentary  on 
Philippians  (New  edition,  pp.  127-133)  seems  to  be  taken  as  the 
basis  of  most  of  the  work  published  since,  and  is  either  accepted  in 
toto  (Haupt-Meyer,  Gifford,  The  Incarnation),  or  almost  ex- 
actly reproduced.  (Trench,  Synonyms  of  the  Nezv  Testament, 
nth  edition  pp.  262-67).  Lightfoot's  position  is  summed  up  by 
him  in  the  following  words  :  "[xoQ(pT]  is  contrasted  with  o/J\\kv.-> 
(in  the  Philippians  passage)  as  that  which  is  intrinsic  and  essen- 
tial with  that  which  is  accidental  and  outward.  And  the  three 
clauses  imply  respectively  the  true  divine  nature  of  our  Lord 
fAopq))]  Oeo\3    ) ,  the  true  human  nature   (    [lOQcpii  8oij?.ov    ) ,  and 

^■'Some  attempt  to  explain  this  passage  as  wholly  concerned  with  the 
earthly  existence  of  Jesus,  hut  this  is  quite  arbitrary.  See  for  a  good  dis- 
cussion, ScHMiEDEL,  Hand-Komvientar,  II.  220;  and  especially  Heinrici- 
Meyer,  8th  Ed.,  ad  he. 

"'That  Paul  means  to  contrast  the  pre-existent  and  historical  states  of 
Christ,  it  is  useless  now  to  deny.  Cf.  Vincent  Int.  Crit.  Com.  ad  loc.  and 
Excursus  pp.  78-90,  and  Holtzmann,  op.  cit.  p.  82.  For  an  ably  supported 
but  one-sided  argument  that  both  2  Cor.  8:9  and  Phil.  2:5-11  are  concerned 
wholly  with  the  historic  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  have  nothing  to  say 
of  pre-existence,  see  Drummond,  Int.  Handbooks  to  the  NeziJ  'Testament, 
ad  loc. 


42  DOES  HELLENISM   COXTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

the  externals  of  the  human  nature  ( ay/] f-iati  c5g  avdQCO.-tos)". 

He  regards  the  sense  of  the  term  here  as  "substantially  the 
same  which  it  bears  in  Greek  philosophy",  meaning  specific  char- 
acter, and  as  such  it  "must  apply  to  the  attributes  of  the  Godhead." 

The  meaning  which  Lightfoot  here  assigns  the  term  he  finds  to 
come  forward  first  in  the  philosophical  writings  of  Plato  and 
Aristotle,  and  especially  of  the  latter.  This  he  holds  to  have  been 
transmitted  to  later  Greek  writers  especially  Plutarch  and  Philo, 
and  to  have  exercised  no  little  influence  upon  popular  speech. 
\Miether  it  was  from  the  latter  that  Paul  derived  his  conception  he 
does  not  decide,  but  seems  to  think  it  probable.  He  virtually  says 
that  the  philosophical  meaning  was  natural  to  Paul  when  he  trans- 
ferred the  term  from  the  objects  of  sense  to  those  of  the  mind.  Of 
this  more  will  be  said  later. 

This  work  of  Lightfoot,  though  forming  the  warp  and  woof  of 
so  much  that  has  since  been  written,  is  open  to  very  serious  criti- 
cism. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  is  generally  held  (and  even  by  Lightfoot 
himself)  that  H-OQCp'l  originally  meant  form,  and  comprised 
"all  those  sensible  qualities  which  striking  the  eye  lead  to  the  con- 
viction that  we  see  such  and  such  a  thing."  But  as  soon  as  he 
gets  from  Aristotle  the  philosophical  meaning  above  referred  to,  he 
leaves  the  popular  use  of  the  term  wholly  out  of  consideration. 
In  this  he  has  fallen  into  error.  He  virtually  assumes  either  that 
in  the  time  of  Paul  the  word  had  only  the  philosophical  meaning 
he  finds  for  it  in  the  writings  of  Aristotle,  or  that  Paul  ignored 
popular  usage  and  returned,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  to  the 
philosophers  for  his  thought.  But  neither  of  these  alternatives  can 
safely  be  assumed,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  first  is  not  supported 
by  the  evidence.  Not  only  do  Plato  and  Aristotle  use  the  word  in 
the  earlier  external  sense^*',  but  it  is  to  be  found  so  used  also  in 
later  Greek.  The  second  alternative,  the  origin  of  Paul's  usage  is 
discussed  more  fully  below  and  it  will  be  seen  to  be  akin  to  though 
not  identical  with  popular  thought  and  usage. 

2.  In  the  second  place  the  philosophical  meaning  which  Light- 
foot attributes  to  the  term  seems  in  advance  of  the  evidence  which 
is  afforded  by  the  passages  which  he  cites.  Great  scholar  that  he 
was,  he  can  hardly  escape  the  charge  of  the  error,  so  frequent  with 
lesser  lights,  of  allowing  his  dogmatic  conceptions  to  color  his  in- 
terpretations  and  cloud  his  historical   insight.     He  is   justified   in 


*'See  especially  Vincent,  op.  cit.  p.  79.  Vincent  himself  seems  uncon- 
sciously to  waver  in  his  conception.  On  p.  79  he  rejects  Lightfoot's  view, 
but  on  p.  57  and  elsewhere  he  has  given  expression  to  a  view  which  is 
essentially  that  of  Lightfoot. 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  43 

drawing  a  rather  sharp  contrast  between  (.lopcpii  and  GYr[[ia, 
making  the  former  more  fundamental  and  abiding  than  the  latter, 
but  he  overpresses  the  distinction.  In  showing  as  he  does  that 
|i.OQq:ri  is  used  with  reference  to  something  more  fundamental 

than  the  "fleeting  transitory  appearance  which  may  change  every 
minute",  it  by  no  means  follows  that  it  must  express  the  funda- 
mental and  essential  attributes  of  the  thing  or  individual.  In  both 
Plato  and  Aristotle  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  l>iOQ(pr]  of  an 
individual  and  the  individual  itself  are  not  so  nearly  identical  that 
the  two  are  inseparable.  Thus  Plato  in  the  Phaedo  (103,3)  says 
in  speaking  of  the  elboq  "not  only  is  the  idea  itself  to  be  called 
always  by  the  same  name,  but  also  anything  else  which,  though  not 
itself  the  idea  yet  when  it  exists  always  has  the  form  (^lopcpi]) 
of  the  idea",  may  be  so  designated.  Here  that  Mdiich  is  not  the 
idea  has  the  form  of  the  idea  whenever  it  exists.  Socrates  pro- 
ceeds to  illustrate  his  meaning  by  showing  that  although  the  num- 
ber 3  is  not  oddness  yet  it  is  always  an  odd  number  and  can  never 
be  any  other.  By  j-iOQtp/]  here  then  he  means  a  certain  quality  of 
an  individual  which  constitutes  it  one  of  a  genus.  It  is  true,  as 
Lightfoot  argues,  that  it  expresses  in  this  illustration  not  a  material 
but  an  abstract  quality,  but  the  usage  is  evidently  a  figurative  and 
derivative  one.  It  is  based  on  the  usage  by  w^hich  the  word  does 
represent  a  material  quality  and  the  point  might  just  as  easily  be 
illustrated  by  an  example  of  the  latter  kind.  To  infer  a  general 
meaning  for  a  word  on  the  basis  of  a  single  passage  and  that  one  in 
w'hich  the  word  is  manifestly  used  in  a  derived  and  figurative  sense 
has  played  havoc  wath  lexicography  very  frequently,  as  it  does 
here. 

Aristotle's  general  conception  of  the  relation  of  matter  and  form 
is  a  familiar  one.  Matter  he  regarded  as  the  potentiality  of  be- 
coming, the  material  substratum  of  things,  and  form  (^opcpr),  elboq 
as  the  necessary  condition  and  cause  of  all  existence.  Under 
the  term  form  he  includes  not  only  the  merely  external  ap- 
pearance but  also  the  more  permanent  organization,  or  the  mode  in 
which  a  given  object  or  being  expresses  itself.  (Cf.  Weber,  His- 
tory of  Philosophy,  pp.  io8ff.).  He  extends  the  use  of  the  term  to 
cover  immaterial  objects,  as  e.  g.  when  he  speaks  of  the  form  of 
courage  or  justice,  but  even  in  this  extension  it  must  be  evident  on 
reflection  that  the  fundamental  conception  of  piOQcpi]  arises  from 
his  contemplation  of  physical  nature.  This  extension  is  all  the 
easier  since,  even  in  the  application  of  the  term  to  physical  objects, 
it  expresses  a  formal  and  not  a  material  concept. 

A  passage  of  which  Lightfoot  makes  much  and  which  he  misin- 
terprets is  very  illuminating  as  to  Aristotle's  general  conception. 


44  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

and  has  a  direct  bearing  on  our  discussion.  In  criticising  Demo- 
critus  for  the  remark  tliat  it  was  clear  to  anybody  what  the  form 
(fiOQcp'])  of  a  man  was,  as  it  was  known  by  his  shape  (axtUian) 
and  color (xQc6|xaTl)  he  says:  (de  Port.  An.  i.  i.  p.  640  B)6  TsOvecbg 
8xet  xiiv  avxi'iv  toO  a/i]uaTOi;  |.ioQcpi]v  uXX'-oiicos  ovx  loxiv  civOqcojio? 
a  corpse  has  the  same  form  of  appearance  but  is  not  a  man.  On  this 
Lightfoot  remarks:  (i)  "The  corpse  has  the  [AOQcpr)  of  the 
human  oxijl-itt  but  it  has  not  the  i^ioQqpT]  of  a  man,"  and 
(2)  "The  form  of  a  man  therefore  in  Aristotle's  conception  was 
something  more  than  his  sensible  appearance."  If  by  this  latter  re- 
mark he  meant  that  (iopq.7]  and  oyr\\^o.  are  not  to  be  identified, 
he  would  be  quite  correct.  But  he  evidently  means  more,  as  is 
suggested  by  the  first  statement  indicated  above.  In  both  statements 
then  he  is  unquestionably  incorrect.  Aristotle  does  not  say  that  the 
corpse  has  not  the  form  of  a  man,  nor  can  the  words  be  interpreted 
to  mean  that  the  corpse  has  only  the  form  i-ioQCfi^)  of  the 
human  oyr\[iu  not  the  form  of  man  himself.  The  statement 
can  only  mean  that  the  corpse  has  the  same  (-iOQfpf)v  a/y]uaxo; 

as  a  man.  The  phrase  "form  of  appearance"  seems  to  be  equiv- 
alent to  external  or  visible  form.  So  far  is  he  then  from  denying 
sameness  of  form  (l-ioQcpi])  to  a  corpse  and  a  man  that,  on  the 
contrary,  he  not  only  explicitly  affirms  their  form  to  be  the  same, 
but  also  bases  his  criticism  of  Democritus  on  that  precise  fact. 

But  another  passage  which  Lightfoot  regards  as  important  in 
establishing  his  position,  deserves  consideration.  In  his  Apology 
Chapter  9,  Justin  declares  that  the  Christians  do  not  honor  such 
deities  as  men  form  for  they  see  that  they  are  soulless  and  dead 
xal  Oeou  noQq5r]v  Oeoij  \xi]  exovta  {ov  yag  ToiaiHi]v  f|YOij|.ieOa  i]v 
(paai  TLve?  Eig  tiiii]v  |.ie[.ii|.ifiaOai)  akld  exeivcov  t(T)v  cpavEVTCOv  xcv/mv 

6ai|-i6va)v  xal    ovofxata  xal    o'/r\[iaxa    e'x^iv   to   oxvj^wa  (.lovov 

aVioJ^avxeq  xal  (J,OQ(pcojioirjaavT8g  Oeoug  ejtov6[.iaal-  .  i  t  i  s 
an  insult  to  God  og  a{>^T|TOV  66^av  xal  (.lopcpTiv  I'xcov  etc. 
On  this  passage  Lightfoot  remarks  that  Justin  "appears  to  contrast 
the  visible  (7x^]|xaTa  of  demons  with  the  insensible  immaterial 
[xoQqpTi   of  God." 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  speaking  of  the  making  of  these  idols 
he  uses  the  word         \iOQCf())ou\xec,  which  of  course  can  only 

have  reference  to  the  shaping  of  the  images.  Further  he  does  not 
deny  that  God  has  any  form  but  only  that  these  idols  have  the  same 
form  as  God,  for,  as  he  proceeds  to  say,  God's  uopcpT]  as  well  as 
his  glory  is  ineflfable.    To  argue  from  this  that  the       M'OP^'H       ^^^ 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  45 

only  be  the  essential  attributes  of  the  Godhead  is  to  repeat  the  error 
already  referred  to.  The  character  or  nature  of  that  [ioQ(pr\  is  not 
at  all  described.  He  is  quite  correct  in  supposing  that  this  passage 
from  Justin  reflects  the  same  conception  as  Paul,  but  that  still  leaves 
it  an  open  question  what  the  conception  was. 

The  meaning  in  classical  Greek  has  already  been  partially  in- 
dicated. The  fundamental  concept  expressed  in  the  term  is  that  of 
form  or  shape.  It  is  frequently  used  like  the  Latin  forma  to  mean 
beautiful  shape,  and  sometimes  seems  to  be  almost  equivalent  to 
axMua.  As  already  indicated,  the  philosophical  usage  neither  dis- 
placed this  more  original  and  more  popular  one,  nor  did  it  travel 
as  far  away  from  it  as  has  apparently  been  too  frequently  con- 
ceived. 

The  Septuagint  usage  appears  clearly  in  the  following  passages 
which  comprise  all  the  instances  of  its  occurrence.  In  Judges 
8:18  B  reads  8ig  6!-ioio)j.ia  where  A  reads  co?  eioog  |LioQq)f)  .  In 
describing  two  men  they  are  both  said  to  look  exactly  like  the  son 
of  a  king.  The  Hebrew  word  it  represents  is  defined  in  the 
Lexicon  as  Form  or  Figure,  and  without  question  the  word  here 
means  the  external  appearance  or  form. 

Isaiah  44:13  speaks  of  the  carpenter  forming  an  image  to  put 
into  the  house  and  mentions  the  fact  that  he  "shapeth  it  after  the 
figure  of  a  man  wg  |,iopc(.'i)v  ccvSqo?  according  to  the  beauty  of  a 
man."  Here  it  translates  the  Hebrew  term  which  means  pattern, 
image,  figure,  and  clearly  external  form  or  figure  is  meant.  Job 
4:16  speaks  of  a  vision  of  the  night  in  which  a  spirit  stood  before 
Eliphaz.  "It  stood  still  (he  says)  and  I  did  not  understand  it  or 
know  it,  I  looked  and  there  was  no  form  (^\ioQ(pr[)  before  my 
eyes."  Here  the  word  translates  the  Hebrew  word  for  figure  or 
appearance  and  evidently  means  external  form  or  appearance. 
Tobit  (1:13)  declares  that  the  Most  High  gave  him  y uq \.\  xai. 
\iOQ(pi]V  before  his  king.  In  this  instance  the  word  can  only 
have  the  meaning  above  referred  to  as  sometimes  occurring  in 
classical  Greek,  beautiful  form  or  appearance.  4  Mace.  15:4 
speaking  of  parents  and  children  mentions  the  xpi^X""!?  ""^^  '^cd  (.lOQq^fjg 
6uoi6ti]t«  where  the  meaning  is  nearly  that  of  body  (  oCo[ia  ) 
and  clearly  refers  to  the  external  physical  form. 

The  word  occurs  several  times  in  Daniel.  In  4:33  Th.  reads 
[iOQ(pTi  while  the  Septuagint  reads  b6\a.  The  form  of  the 
king  is  said  to  have  been  restored  to  him  and  means  that  he  re- 
ceived again  the  appearance  and  form  of  man  instead  of  his  former 


46  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

grotesque  appearance  of  a  beast.  In  5:6  Th.  again  reads  (^opqi) 
while  the  Septuagint  reads  bguoic,-  This  passage  is  describing 
the  countenance  of  Belshazzar  which  changed  at  the  writing  on  the 
wall.  In  5  :9-io  we  have  the  same  words  repeated  in  Th.  while  the 
Septuagint  has  nothing  to  correspond.  In  7 128  the  same  words  oc- 
cur, this  time  applied  to  Daniel,  and  the  Septuagint  has  eliq 
(a  habit  either  of  body  or  mind).  In  all  these  passages  the  Aramaic 
word  is  the  one  which  the  Gesenius-Kautzsch  Lexicon  defines  as 
Gesichtsfarhe.  Daniel  3:19  is  the  most  interesting  of  all  the  Sep- 
tuagint passages.  Here  the  Septuagint  has  |.ioQ(pii  and  Th.  has 
o\|)i5.  The  Hebrew  word  is  the  same  as  the  word  used  in  Gen. 
1 :27  to  denote  the  image  of  God  in  which  man  was  created.  The 
passage  relates  how  the  (f.iooq;i]  xov  Jipoatojrov)  form  of  the 
countenance  of  Nebuchadrezzar  was  changed  with  fury  against  the 
three  Hebrews  who  refused  to  worship  him.  (Cf.  Haupt-Meyer 
on  Phil.  p.  71). 

Thus  it  is  clear  that  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
Septuagint  is  that  of  form  or  figure  with  the  strong  tendency  to 
approach  the  natural  meaning  of   o-/j\\.io.  ^'''. 

Outside  of  the  passage  imder  consideration  the  word  occurs  but 
once  in  the  New  Testament,  and  that  in  Mark  16:12,  written  about 
125  A.  D.  It  here  means  the  external  form  or  figure  including  the 
appearance,  as  Luke  24:13-31  upon  which  the  passage  in  ]Mark  is 
based  clearly  shows. 

The  word  occurs  several  times  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  In 
Diog.  2  :3  not  only  ^OQcpr]  but  also  the  verb  j-iopcf  t60avTs;  is 
used  in  reference  to  the  change  which  various  materials  undergo, 
as  under  the  hand  of  the  stonecutter,  silversmith,  or  potter,  or  other 
artificer,  they  are  made  into  the  idols  which  the  heathen  worship. 
The  verb  represents  the  transforming  process  and  the  noun  the 
shape  or  form  of  the  idol  which  is  made.  That  such  is  its  meaning 
admits  of  no  question.  In  Hcrmas  Vis.  III.  10,  2  and  9;  11,  i 
reference  is  made  to  three  figures  which  had  appeared  to  Hernias  in 
a  vision.  These  were  symbolical  and  of  course  non-material,  but  in 
speaking  of  them  as  |.iOQ(fai  the  representation  is  clearly  that  of 
physical  form  or  outline.  In  Sim.  IX.  i  :i  a  reference  is  made  to 
the  message  which  had  been  given  to  Hernias  by  the  spirit  which 
had  spoken  to  him  ev  ^opqjTJ  xr\q  ExxXi]aia5.  This  passage  refers 
back  to  the  vision  (Vision  ill.)  in  which  the  church  had  ap- 
peared to  him  in  the  form  of  a  building,  and  just  as  in  the  preceding 

"    OX^l^'^  occurs  in  the  Septuagint  but  once  and  that  in  Isaiah  3:17.     Its 
meaning  is  here  obscure.     See   Brown-Driver-Briggs  on  Poth 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL's     CHRISTOLOGY  47 

passages,  though  non-material,  the  mental  picture  is  clearly  that  of 
a  physical  material  form  or  shape. 

In  the  Clementine  Homilies  XVII.  37,8,10  occurs  a  very  ex- 
plicit and  illuminating  use  of  this  term.  Peter  is  represented  as  in- 
sisting upon  the  anthropomorphic  conception  of  God.  When  his 
opponent  objects  that  if  God  has  a  [logcpi]  he  also  has  a  cyr[[ia. 
Peter  accepts  the  implication  and  says  that  he  has  in  fact  not  only 
the  same  (JiOQcpi]  but  also  the  same  o'/r]\ia  as  man.  He 
then  proceeds  to  say  that  because  of  his  splendor  he  is  invisible,  but 
that  man  is  his  visible  image.  His  possession  of  limbs  and  eyes  and 
other  organs  of  the  body  are  not  necessary  to  him  for  "He  has 
shape  l-ioQcpii)  and  he  has  every  limb  primarily  and  solely  for 
beauty's  sake  and  not  for  use."     (cf.  Secrets  of  Enoch  65  :i). 

In  view  of  all  these  passages  the  conclusion  seems  unavoidable 
that  by  (ioq^ji]  we  must  understand,  not  on  the  one  side,  merely  a 
synonym  for  oyviaa,  nor  on  the  other  the  essential  attributes  of 
the  thing  or  person,  so  that  the  possession  of  the  ^^OQqyi  of 
any  person  or  thing  involves  essential  identity  with  that  person  or 
thing ;  but  we  must  understand  the  term  to  refer  to  the  character- 
istic mode  of  being  or  existence  of  a  given  object  or  person^^ 

It  is  held  by  many  commentators,  especially  those  of  theological 
propensities,  that  the  word  must  here  have  a  peculiar  application 
since  God  can  not  be  thought  of  under  the  concept  of  shape  or 
form.  (See  e.  g.ViNCENT,  and  Lightfoot  ad.  loc.)  This  however 
is  to  confuse  interpretation  with  dogmatics.  It  is  not  at  all  clear 
that  such  a  conception  was  foreign  to  Paul.  It  is  scarcely  to  be 
doubted  that  he,  just  as  his  contemporaries,  regarded  God  from  an 
anthropomorphic  rather  than  from  a  philosophic  point  of  view,  and 
that  he  conceived  of  the  personality  of  God  as  invested  with  an  ex- 
ternalized organization  fitted  to  his  transcendent  being  is  not  im- 
possible. That  such  was  the  representation  of  contemporary  Juda- 
ism does  not  admit  of  question.  As  early  as  the  book  of  Daniel, 
165  B.  C.,  (not  to  speak  of  the  general  Old  Testament  view;  see 
Gen.  I  :27  and  cf.  Gunkel,  Schbpfung  und  Chaos  pp.  9-12)  God 
was  conceived  as  existing  in  a  body  whose  outline  resembled  the  hu- 

'*The  discussion  of  Lightfoot  concerning  the  derivatives  of  I^OQq"!^  and 
a/fjua  need  not  be  considered.  In  general  the  distinction  which  he  makes 
may  be  allowed  to  stand,  and  he  has  shown  that  the  New  Testament  does 
distinguish  more  or  less  sharply  between  the  two  terms.  His  discussion, 
however,  is  subject  to  the  same  criticism  which  has  already  been  advanced, 
and  must  be  corrected  in  the  light  of  it.  Theological  prepossession  has 
vitiated  his  exegetical  method  and  prevents  him  from  seeing  (i)  that  the 
term  is  used  in  a  derivative  sense  and  (2)  that  the  conception  lies  much 
closer  to  the  original  physical  basis  of  the  term  than  he  will  allow.  See 
especially  Mark  9:2  and  parallels,  and  2  Cor.  3:18. 


48  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

man  form,  differing  only  in  the  majesty,  and  glory  of  His  person  and 
raiment,  and  the  magnificence  of  His  surroundings.  He  sat  on  a 
throne,  the  hair  of  His  head  was  like  wool  for  whiteness  and  purity, 
and  His  raiment  was  white  as  snow.  The  throne  on  which  He 
sat  was  of  fiery  flames  and  had  wheels  of  burning  fire.  Fire  flowed 
from  before  Him  and  thousands  of  thousands  ministered  to  Him. 
Judgment  was  administered  on  the  basis  of  records  opened  before 
Him  (Dan.  7:9-10).  The  same  conception  is  to  be  found  also  in  the 
book  of  Enoch  (71:5-13),  and  is  expressed  in  almost  identical 
terms.  Ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  minister  to  the  Head  of 
Days  whose  head  is  white  and  pure  as  wool,  whose  raiment  is  inde- 
scribable. He  dwells  in  a  house  of  crystals  girt  round  with  flames 
of  living  fire.  In  Enoch  14:9-25  we  have  a  fuller  description  along 
the  same  general  line.  God  who  is  called  the  Great  Glory  sat  on  a 
throne  whose  appearance  was  as  hoar-frost,  its  circuit  as  a  shining 
sun,  and  the  voices  of  cherubim.  From  beneath  the  great  throne 
came  streams  of  fire  so  that  it  was  impossible  to  look  thereon.  The 
throne  was  situated  in  a  large  house  built  of  flames  of  fire  whose 
splendor  and  magnificence  and  extent  were  indescribable.  "None 
of  the  angels  could  enter  and  could  behold  the  face  of  the  Honored 
and  Glorious  One  and  no  flesh  could  behold  Him.  A  flaming  fire 
was  round  about  Him  and  a  great  fire  stood  before  Him  and  none 
of  those  who  were  around  Him  could  draw  nigh  Him."  A  similar 
conception  underlies  Enoch  46:1,2;  47:3;  60:2;  89:22  and  90:20. 
The  Assumption  of  Moses  from  the  first  quarter  of  the  first  century 
reflects  the  same  conception  (see  10:3,7;  12:13);  as  does  also  the 
Apocalypse  of  Banich  21:3^?;  59:36?,  only  it  is  not  so  explicitly 
stated.  The  Christian  writing,  The  Ascension  of  Isaiah,  though 
written  not  before  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century  A.  D.,  in  many 
points  reflects  Jewish  conceptions.  It  treats  elaborately  of  the 
seven  heavens  and  the  character  of  their  inhabitants.  God  is  there 
conceived  in  human  form  but  of  surpassing  and  unapproachable 
glory.  See  especially  9:34-42;  io:y^;  11:32.  (Cf.  also  Secrets  of 
Enoch  20:3;  21:1;  22:23;  49:3  and  3  Mace.  2:15;  Jos.  con.  Ap. 
2:22,2). 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  a  common  and  perhaps  the 
prevailing  conception  of  God  in  Judaism  pictured  Him  in  the  form 
or  figure  of  a  man.  (cf.  Bruckner,  Die  Entstehung  der  Paulin- 
ischen  Christologie,  p.  68).  It  was  not  so  much  the  outline  of  His 
figure  as  the  glory  (  h6\a  )  in  respect  to  which  He  differed  from 
men.  As  the  writer  of  I  Timothy  6:16  puts  it,  "He  dwelt  in  light 
unapproachable  who  was  unseen  and  invisible  to  human  eye."  No 
one  would  desire  to  hold  the  writers  of  these  various  books  to  an 
exactly  literal  understanding  of  that  which  they  wrote,  but  it  can 
scarcely  be  without  significance  that  the  constant  representation  por- 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  49 

trays  God  in  these  terms.  Although  the  writer  of  Enoch  (14:16) 
declares  that  the  splendor  and  magnificence  of  the  heavenly  throne 
and  mansion  are  indescribable  and  the  face  of  the  "Honored  and 
Glorious  One"  invisible,  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  this  was 
due  to  their  intangible  or  formless  character.  It  was  due  simply 
to  their  transcendent  and  inexpressible  splendor  and  glory. 

For  early  Christianity  as  well  as  for  Judaism  the  same  general 
conceptions  held  true.  Heaven  was  a  place  above  the  earth  which 
was  invisible.  In  it  dwelt  God  whom  only  a  few  chosen  spirits  had 
been  privileged  to  see.  As  in  the  case  of  the  writers  already  re- 
ferred to,  the  conception  is  one  of  decided  anthropomorphism^^. 
Paul  seems  also  to  have  occupied  the  same  general  position.  The 
manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  his  visions  and  revelations  (2  Cor. 
12:1-4)  is  simply  a  duplicate  of  that  which  occurs  in  Daniel  (7:1, 
8:iff,  I5ff ;  9:1^10:1),  Enoch  (i3:8ff;  I4:8ff;  37:1;  71:5ft'  et  pas- 
sim). Apocalypse  of  Baruch  (6:2;  13:1 ;  22:1 ;  46:7),  Ascension  of 
Isaiah  (6:10';  y.^^;  8:if),  Assumption  of  Moses  (12:4)  and  IV 
Ezra  (8:20;  14:49).  (Cf.  Charles,  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  46:7, 
note).  His  general  view  is  indicated  also  in  I  Thess.  4:i4ff;  Gal. 
4 :26 ;  I  Cor.  15  :8,  4ofif,  5iff ;  II  Cor.  5  :ifif ;  12:1-4;  Rom.  i  :20,  23 ; 
8  :34 ;  14  :io ;  Eph.  i  :3ff ;  3  :9ff ;  Col.  3:1;  Phil.  3  :2off ;  2  :ioff. 

But  there  are  several  facts  which  indicate  that  the  grossly 
anthropomorphic  view  reflected  in  some  of  these  passages  is  not  to 
be  attributed  to  Paul. 

In  the  first  place  it  should  be  noted,  that  in  the  greater  number 
of  cases  in  which  i-iOQcpii  occurs  it  is  not  used  in  reference  to 
God  but  with  respect  to  other  objects  of  thought.  We  have  then 
to  ask  not  what  the  term  meant  but  what  idea  is  intended  to  be 
conveyed  by  the  anthropomorphic  phraseology  resulting  from  the 
application  of  the  term  to  God.  In  the  Clementines  it  seems  to  be 
true  that  the  author  accepts  a  more  or  less  crass  idea  of  God  and 
regards  him  as  little  more  than  a  large  man  who  is  invisible  to  the 
physical  eye.  But  there  is  no  valid  reason  for  denying  that  Justin 
thought  of  God  as  immaterial  and  invisible,  not  localized  in  an  ex- 
ternal physical  organization.  It  may  also  be  agreed  that  the 
thought  of  the  various  writers  as  it  is  reflected  above  is  not  as  gross 
as  it  appears.  It  is  more  probable  that  they  picture  to  their  minds 
a  mode  of  existence  which  they  express  in  sense  terms,  but  at  the 
same  time  as  they  in  fact  deny  to  it  visibility,  they  by  implication 
recognize  their  own  anthropomorphism,  and  deny  to  that  mode  of 
existence  a  physically  sensible  character. 


^'See  Mark  10:40;  14:62;  Matt.  20:33;  22:44;  Acts  2:33;  5:31;  7:55,  56; 
I  Peter  3:23;  i  Tim.  1:17;  6:16,  and  for  very  explicit  representations  see 
Rev.  passim   and  especially  Ascension  of  Isaiah  g  134-42. 


50  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE   CONSTITUENT 

In  the  second  place  it  appears  on  consideration  that  to  make 
jiOQcpi]  in  the  present  passage  mean  merely  form  or  figure  would 
be  to  limit  the  passage  to  the  expression  of  an  extremely  jejune 
thought.  Of  what  possible  significance  it  could  be  to  exist  in  the 
figure  of  God  when  that  figure,  so  far  as  it  is  expressed  at  all,  is 
conceived  to  resemble  the  human  body,  is  not  easy  to  see.  But 
that  is  simply  to  say  that  we  must  turn  to  the  philosophic  meaning 
to  interpret  our  passage. 

There  is  no  a  priori  reason  against  this  for  we  recall  that  in  the 
time  of  Paul  the  philosophic  usage  was  more  than  three  hundred 
years  old  and  could  scarcely  have  failed  to  have  percolated  into 
common  thought  and  language  in  no  small  degree.  But  when  we 
look  for  the  philosophic  meaning  w-e  must  be  careful  that  we  get 
hold  of  what  it  really  was.  We  have  seen  above  that,  on  the  one 
side,  it  included  more  than  the  mere  external  outline,  but  that 
Lightfoot  had  fallen  into  error  in  thinking  that  the  only  alternative 
was  to  make  the  word  mean  essential  attribute.  But  it  has  appeared 
I  think  in  our  criticism  of  Lightfoot,  that  it  meant  rather  the 
mode  of  existence  of  any  given  object  or  person.  On  the  one  side 
it  excludes  mere  outline  and  on  the  other  essential  identity.  It  is 
in  itself  a  term,  implying  externalization  but  as  applied  to  God  it 
is  felt  to  be  anthropomorphic  and  is  used  only  as  the  best  expres- 
sion to  set  forth  a  conception  of  God  in  personal  terms.  (Cf.  John 
"God  is  spirit,"  and  yet  note  his  numerous  anthropomorphisms). 
When  now  we  understand  the  term  properly  we  see  that  it  is  ex- 
actly fitting  to  the  present  passage.  The  great  humiliation  of  Christ 
consisted  not  in  changing  on  the  one  hand  the  mere  outlines  of  his 
body,  or  on  the  other  in  casting  aside  his  essential  attributes,  but 
in  the  giving  up  by  the  self-identical  Christ  of  the  mode  and  con- 
ditions of  existence  which  were  those  of  God  himself  and  taking 
those  of  man'"'.  In  the  one  condition  he  had  open  before  him 
prerogatives  and  privileges  in  connection  with  God  befitting  his 
dignity.  He  chose  to  accept  the  human  mode  and  conditions  of 
existence  with  the  career  which  it  involved. 

The  purpose  of  this  essay  would  not  be  advanced  by  a  consid- 
eration of  the  exact  thought  of  this  entire  passage.  We  are  not 
concerned  with  an  exposition  of  the  entire  Pauline  Christology  in 
detail.  We  need  only  consider  the  other  expression  which  has 
to  do  with  the  mode  and  conditions  of  Christ's  pre-existent  state. 
Nor  is  it  essential  that  this  be  considered  as  fully  as  the  expres- 
sion which  has  just  occupied  our  attention.  We  have  already  dis- 
covered the  fundamental  conception  which  Paul  entertained  con- 


"At  this  point  the  apostle's  conception  of  the  spiritual  and  physical  or 
psychical  body  should  be  compared,     i  Cor.  15  :3s  ff. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  5I 

cerning  the  nature  of  the  pre-existent  Christ.  We  may  now  ask 
briefly  what  further  Hght  the  expression  oi)>t  dejraY[x6v....'9e^,  fur- 
nishes on  this  point. 

In  the  first  place  we  may  reject  as  entirely  groundless  every 
interpretation  which  makes  Paul  say  that  the  to  elvai  I'aa  i)eq)  did 
not  belong  to  the  pre-existent  Christ  and  was  not  possible  to  him, 
but  that  it  was  appointed  for  him  as  a  reward  for  his  self-abnega- 
tion (So  Weiss,  Bib.  Thcol.  of  N.  T.,  Vol.  II,  p.  loi ;  Briggs,  Mes- 
siah of  the  Apostles,  p.  i8o;  Beyschlag,  A''.  T.  Th.,  II,  p.  88), 
Such  an  interpretation  has  no  support  whatever  in  this  passage, 
and  can  only  be  entertained  by  one  who  refuses,  because  of  dog- 
matic presupposition,  to  allow  the  apostle  to  express  his  own 
thought.  It  is  singularly  arbitrary.  The  choice  must  lie  between 
making  to  eivai  laa  Oecp  essentially  equivalent  to  bv  [AOpqpT]  ^f.ov 
(So  Thayer  on  (lOQq)!)  and  apparently  Vincent,  Int.  Crit.  Com., 
p.  84f),  and  something  which  lay  before  Christ  as  an  immediate 
possibility  because  of  his  being  ev  |AOQq)f)  -Oeoii.  In  this  case  it 
would  represent  a  higher  condition  than  that  Avhich  he  already 
occupied,  carrying  with  it  greater  prerogatives  than  those  he  al- 
ready enjoyed. 

The  decision  of  this  question  rests  partly  upon  our  decision 
concerning  some  other  points.  Are  we  to  understand  eivai  in  the 
sense  of  a  copulative  verb  or  is  it  to  be  understood  as  having  the 
meaning  "to  exist"?  If  we  decide  with  Meyer,  Ellicott,  Weiss 
and  Vincent  for  the  latter,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  it  must  be 
something  which  Christ  already  enjoyed'*^  For  (i)  not  only  would 
it  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  the  attainment  of  any  state  of  essen- 
tial being  as  aQjiayjiov,  but  (2)  the  ascription  to  anyone 
even  to  Christ  of  the  possibility  of  rising  from  a  lower  state  of 
being  to  that  of  God,  or  the  permitting  of  one  to  entertain  such 
an  idea,  is  more  than  the  apostle's  general  point  of  view  or  any 
other  particular  statement  of  his  reflects  or  warrants.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  verb  elvai  be  taken  in  its  more  probable  sense  as 
copula,  the  question  whether  the  I'aa  -Oeo)  was  already  exper- 
ienced by  Christ  or  lay  before  him  as  a  prize  to  be  won  is  left  un- 
decided. 

We  must  next  consider  the  meaning  of  aQ%ay\i6y.  We  may 
dismiss  as  quite  out  of  the  range  of  possibility  the  conception  of 
Meyer  which  makes  this  refer  to  the  effort  to  gain  worldly  honor 


"I  regard  the  discovery  in  this  passage  of  an  implied  antithesis  between 
Christ  and  Adam  (e.  g.  as  Briggs,  Barton)  as  a  sheer  importation,  absolutely 
unsustained  by  the  evidence. 


52  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

and  fame  which  Christ  renounced  in  his  humiliation.  This  Meyer 
does  on  the  basis  of  the  conception  that  uQnay[i6y  must  be  taken 
in  its  active  sense.  Whether  it  is  so  to  be  taken  or  not  his  inter- 
pretation is  singularly  perverse.  The  precise  meaning  of  the  term 
is  somewhat  obscure.  The  formation  of  nouns  with  the  termina- 
tion (.105  usually  gives  to  them  the  active  meaning.  There  is  but 
one  example  of  this  noun  in  a  profane  author  and  that  (Plutarch, 
Moral,  p.  12  A)  is  apparently  used  in  an  active  sense.  Other  pas- 
sages in  Greek  later  than  Paul  in  which  it  has  been  noted  (see 
Vincent,  op.  cit.,  ad.  loc.)  reflect  the  passive  meaning.  Other 
nouns  in  [loc,  (as  deai^o?  yQ-\\a\ih<;  see  Thayer  and  cf.  Vincent) 
bear  the  passive  meaning.  The  evidence  obtainable 'as  well  as  the 
whole  context  of  the  passage,  seems  to  suggest  that  here  the  word 
has  the  passive  force  and  means  "a  thing  to  be  grasped"  or  "laid 
hold  upon." 

Whether  now  we  are  to  understand  it  to  refer  to  something  al- 
ready possessed  or  something  possible  of  attainment  is  slightly 
indicated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  passage.  The  taking  of  the  form 
of  a  servant  and  being  found  in  the  likeness  of  a  man  seems  to  carry 
with  it  certain  experiences  which  the  incarnate  Christ  voluntarily, 
but  not  of  logical  necessity,  assumed.  The  balance  of  thought 
would  seem  to  suggest  that  the  retaining  of  the  form  of  God  car- 
ried with  it  certain  possibilities  which  Christ  relinquished.  That  is 
to  say,  in  the  form  of  God  there  was  open  to  him  one  career  but 
he  deliberately  turned  from  that  and  taking  the  form  of  a  servant 
chose  another  career.  But  against  this  it  may  be  urged  that  the 
point  upon  which  the  apostle  is  laying  emphasis  is  the  extreme 
humiliation  of  Christ  in  changing  from  fxopcpr)  i^eou  to  [lOQqjT)  SouXov 
and  the  sharpness  of  the  contrast  introduced  by  alXo.  as  well  as 
the  depth  of  the  humiliation  would  be  heightened  if  the  preroga- 
tives of  the  TO  eivai  I'aa  Oeto  were  not  as  yet  a  mere  possibility  but 
were  already  his  own.  Since  the  humiliation  is  clearly  the  central 
thoug-ht  of  the  apostle,  I  think  it  must  lead  us  to  decide  in  favor 
of  the  latter  alternative.  In  that  case  the  ao7x,ay\ihv  refers  to 
something  which  Christ  already  held,  but  did  not  desire  to  lay  hold 
upon,  to  eagerly  retain. 

We  must  at  this  point  decide  how  we  are  to  understand  the 
expression  'loa  Oetp.  It  can  scarcely  be  maintained  that  it  is 
identical   with   the   expression    laog  Oecp.  Lightfoot   recognizes 

the  distinction  between  the  two  and  says  that  the  latter  refers  to 
the  person,  the  former  to  the  attributes.  Although  the  article  is 
not  used  with  Oeto,  in  consequence  of  which  exact  identity  could 
scarcely  be  supposed  to  be  affirmed,  it  is  unnecessary  to  dispute 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  53 

Lightfoot's  suggestion  for  the  latter  expression.  But  when  he  de- 
fines the  eivai  I'aa  dew  as  representing  an  equaHty  of  attributes 
we  must  demur.  Here  again  dogmatic  theology  and  not  exegesis 
is  at  work.  Just  what  Vincent  means  by  "existence  in  the  way  of 
equality  with  God"  is  difficult  to  say.  He  does  not  state  in  what 
respect  there  is  equality,  but  apparently  implies  {op.  cit.,  p.  86) 
that  he  understands  it  to  mean  "equality  of  being."  But  this  is 
tautological  of  the  previous  expression  and  what  he  understands 
by  the  term  is  still  a  matter  of  question.  His  discussion  of  the  dis- 
tinction which  Beyschlag  maintains  as  between  debq  and  6  Oeo? 
seems  to  indicate  that  he  understands  it  as  practically  equivalent  to 
1005  Oew  without  being  open  to  the  objection  that  it  reflects  a 
dualism  as  between  God  and  Christ.  That  is,  he  seems  to  regard 
it  as  making  Christ  substantially  God. 

The  choice  of  the  word  SoiiXoi)  to  express  the  condition  unto 
which  Christ  came  when  he  emptied  himself,  together  with  the 
fact  that  Paul  has  in  I  Cor.  10:4  already  assigned  to  Christ  a 
mediatorial  activity  in  creation  suggests  strongly  that  there  is  in 
this  passage  a  reference  to  certain  prerogatives  which  Christ  en- 
joyed. Paul  can  hardly  mean  to  say,  however,  that  these  preroga- 
tives and  powers  were  equal  to  those  of  God,  for  not  only  does 
the  apostle  uniformly  subordinate  Christ  to  God,  but  even  here 
the  lordship  into  possession  of  which  Christ  comes  as  a  result  of 
his  humiliation  is  a  gift  of  God  (Oeog  not  naxr\Q).  Since  it  was  in 
consequence  of  Christ's  self  humiliation  that  he  was  exalted  as  lord 
above  every  creature,  it  seems  hardly  probable  that  the  apostle 
conceived  him  to  have  possessed  even  this  lordship  prior  to  his 
humiliation.  On  the  other  side,  the  entire  Pauline  thought  as  well 
as  the  clear  implications  of  the  present  passage  will  not  allow  us 
to  interpret  toa  ■deed  as  "equality  of  essential  being  with  God." 
The  thought  of  the  apostle  seems  best  exhibited  in  making  the 
phrase  refer  to  the  conditions  of  Christ's  pre-existent  life.  With 
this  the  apostle  associates  certain  prerogatives  and  powers,  but 
the  equality  pertains  only  to  the  conditions  of  existence  in  which 
these  were  enjoyed.  I  regard  the  phrase  Xoa  ■^^qJ  then  as  the 
practical  equivalent  of  Iv  \iOQ(pr[  deov.  In  this  latter  phrase 
the  emphasis  is  upon  the  mode  of  being  or  existence,  the  condi- 
tions being  implied.  In  the  former  phrase  the  emphasis  is  on  the 
conditions  of  existence  the  mode  being  implied  because  already 
stated. 

We  must  now  inquire  as  to  the  origin  of  this  conception.     How 
did  Paul  reach  it?    What  elements  contribute  to  it? 

According  to  I  Cor.  15:1-3  Paul  had  received  from  the  primi- 


54  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

tive  church  that  Christ  died  for  sin  according  to  the  scriptures  and 
it  is  obvious  to  inquire  whether  he  also  received  from  them  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  pre-existence.  It  must  be  said  that  we  have 
no  evidence  that  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  was  a  dogma  of  primi- 
tive Christianity*-.  The  chief  elements  in  the  Messianic  conception 
of  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  are ;  that  he  was  approved  unto  the 
nation  by  mighty  works  which  God  wrought  in  him  (2:22;  10:38) 
and  the  same  spirit  which  operated  in  him  to  do  these  mighty 
powers  made  him  holy  and  righteous  (3:14;  4:27.  Cf.  7:52;  9:14). 
God  had  also  placed  his  approval  upon  him  by  raising  him  from 
the  dead  (2:24,  31,  33;  3:15;  4:10;  5:30.  Cf.  4:33;  10:40;  13:30). 
In  addition  to  this  God  had  exalted  him  to  his  right  hand  (2:33; 
5:31)  and  had  made  him  not  only  Christ  (3:20;  13:23,  32,  33.  Cf. 
2:36)  but  also  Lord  (2:34-36;  5:42;  9:22).  He  must  remain  in 
the  heavens  until  the  final  restoration  of  all  things,  (3:21)  whence 
he  had  sent  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  his  disciples  (2:33;  3:21).  He 
is  the  power  working  in  his  disciples  to  perform  miracles  (3:16; 
4:10),  is  the  author  of  life,  probably  resurrection  life  (3:15.  Cf. 
5:31;  7:56),  and  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead 
(10:42).  The  evidence  seems  quite  clear  that  Paul's  earliest  con- 
ception joined  immediately  on  to  that  of  the  primitive  church.  Ac- 
cording to  the  representation  of  Acts  13:16-40  his  sermon  at 
Pisidian  Antioch  did  not  differ  in  the  main  from  the  sermons  of 
the  apostles  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts.  There  can  be  seen  the 
beginning,  however,  of  the  philosophy  of  the  death  of  Christ  which 
he  later  developed  so  fully.  His  first  step  forward  is  that  as  Christ 
passed  through  and  conquered  death  (that  is,  was  raised  from  the 
dead)  so  he  can  deliver  all  who  accept  him  (vss.  33  and  38,  but  cf. 
3:15;  5:31;  7:56).  In  Acts  17:3  he  goes  a  step  further  "opening 
(the  scriptures)  and  alleging  that  it  helioovcd  the  Christ  to  suffer 
and  to  rise  again  from  the  dead."  Cf.  also  26:23.  That  this  in  the 
main  features  is  a  correct  representation  seems  clear  from  first  and 
second  Thessalonians  (see  especially  I  Thess.  1:10,  11;  1:3;  2:19; 
3:13;  4:15;  5:1,  2,  10,  23;  II  Thess.  1:7;  2:1,  8,  14). 

As  alread}^  indicated  above,  Paul  told  the  Corinthians  that  he 
had  received  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  death  for  sin  according  to  the 
scriptures  from  the  early  church.  By  some  the  term  servant  ;n;aig 
which  is  used  of  Jesus  in  these  early  chapters  (3:13,  26;  4:27,  30) 
is  thought  to  reflect  this  conception  and  to  go  back  to  the  53d  chap- 


■^^  Baldensperger,  ot>.  cit.  p.  145-6,  says  that  in  respect  of  the  pre-existence 
of  the  Messiah  as  in  many  other  things,  Christianity  simply  took  over  Jewish 
tradition.  Paul's  emphasis  is  at  first  upon  the  risen  Christ  and  he  seems  only 
gradually  to  have  attained  the  fully  developed  Christology  of  the  im- 
prisonment epistles.  For  a  very  stimulating  but  overdrawn  and  frequently 
fanciful  presentation,  see  Wernle,  Die  Anfaenge,  etc.,  pp.  203-205. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  55 

ter  of  Isaiah.  (See  Knowling  on  Acts  3:13  and  page  iiQff).  This 
however  is  not  supported  by  the  evidence.  It  seems  probable  that 
such  an  important  point  of  the  message  would  not  have  been 
omitted  from  the  discourses  which  originally  contained  it  and 
would  have  been  reflected  in  these  chapters  in  some  explicit  terms. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  term  :taT;  is  used  of  David  (4:25)  in 
much  the  same  way  that  it  is  used  elsewhere  of  Jesus,  apparently 
in  an  untechnical  and  general  sense*^.     (Cf.  Didache  9:2,  3;  10:2). 

Of  course  the  testimony  of  Paul  concerning  that  which  he  had 
received  from  the  early  church  can  not  be  impeached,  nor  does  it 
admit  of  a  different  interpretation  from  that  suggested  above  (Cf. 
Peine,  Eine  Vorkanonische  Ueberliefenmg  des  Ltikas,  p.  229ff). 
It  is  not  necessary  however  to  suppose  that  the  Christological  doc- 
trine of  the  church  had  remained  undeveloped  before  it  reached 
Paul.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  allow  for  at  least  enough  devel- 
opment to  explain  at  once  Paul's  statement  concerning  the  trans- 
mission to  him  from  the  early  church,  of  the  conception  of  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ  and  its  almost  total  absence  from  the 
early  chapters  of  Acts.  Such  a  development  would  be  only  natural. 
The  conception  may  possibly  be  contained  in  germ  in  such  pas- 
sages as  2:23,  28;  3:18,  19;  4:12;  7:52;  see  especially  8:32.  It 
should  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  not  only  did  Paul  not  hear  this 
first  preaching,  but  seems,  as  do  these  early  chapters,  to  have  begun 
his  own  preaching  by  laying  the  emphasis  upon  the  messiahship  of 
Jesus  as  evidenced  in  the  scripture.  But  the  apostle  neither  hints, 
nor  does  the  record  even  if  we  include  the  epistles  which  reflect 
primitive  Christian  thought,  afford  the  slightest  suggestion,  that 
the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  was  held  by  the  early  church. 

We  must  conclude,  then,  that  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  pre-exis- 
tence of  Christ  was  not  transmitted  to  him  as  a  tradition  of  the 
church,  and  accepted  on  the  basis  of  such  authority. 

Nor  does  it  seem  more  successful  to  attempt  to  find  the  source 
of  the  doctrine  in  the  Alexandrian  conception  of  the  heavenly  man. 
As  we  have  already  shown,  this  conception  had  no  influence  upon 
his  doctrine  of  the  second  Adam,  and  it  has  even  less  claim  to  our 
attention  here.  It  was  shown  in  the  previous  discussion  that  this 
conception  was  a  very  uncertain  and  hazy  one,  being  as  a  matter 
of  fact  scarcely  more  than  a  formal  rhetorical  term.     Grant  that 


"The  proposal  to  translate  ^aXq  by  son  (see  Sanday,  Hast.  Diet.  Art. 
Son  of  God,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  574)  and  thus  to  find  in  it  a  metaphysical  relation- 
ship and  pre-existence  cannot  be  seriously  considered.  This  conception  begins 
to  appear  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (see  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  14:1,  3; 
Clement  59:2-4;  Ep.  to  Diogn.  8:9-11.  Cf.  Ignatius  Eph.  7:2;  Magn.  6:1; 
Smyrn.  1:1)  and  by  the  time  of  Justin  has  reached  a  high  development  (see 
.A.pology  2:6). 


56  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

it  expresses  a  clearly  defined  conception  it  is  not  the  conception 
which  Paul  has  for  he  thinks  of  Christ  as  pre-existent,  not  as  man 
but  as  a  divine  being  whose  relations  ally  him  to  God.  Further 
than  this,  this  Alexandrian  doctrine  is  in  no  way  connected  with 
the  Messiah.  The  Sibylline  Oracles  which  may  be  ascribed  to  a 
date  before  Paul,  do  not  reflect  the  conception  of  a  Messiah  at 
all.  Philo  makes  but  little  of  the  Messiah.  The  terms  in  which 
he  describes  him  are  very  indefinite,  but  certainly  reflect  nothing 
beyond  the  conception  of  an  ordinary  man  chosen  to  perform  the 
specific  task  of  reuniting  Israel  and  leading  it  to  triumph.  (See  de 
clientb  I,  cf.  3;  de  cxccratione  8,  g;  de  prcm.  et  poen.  15-20).  Nor 
can  I  regard  it  as  more  probable  that  the  logos  conception  con- 
tributed to  Paul's  thought  here  in  any  appreciable  degree.  After 
everything  is  said  there  seems  no  clear  evidence  that  Philo  thought 
of  the  logos  in  any  way  approaching  the  conception  of.  a  separate 
personality.  However  much  certain  passages  would  verbally  sup- 
port such  an  interpretation,  it  cannot  be  maintained.  As  I  read 
Philo  his  conception  of  the  logos  cannot  be  better  expressed  briefly 
than  in  the  words  of  Drummond  {Philo  Jndacus,  II,  p.  273). 
"From  first  to  last  the  Logos  (in  Philo)  is  the  thought  of  God 
dwelling  subjectively  in  the  infinite  mind,  planted  out  and  made 
objective  in  the  universe,"  or,  (as  he  phrases  it  on  p.  223)  "per- 
manently impressed  on  the  universe."  Paul's  is  unequivocally  and 
definitely  a  personal  conception.  It  is  farther  from  Philo  at  this 
point  than  from  Palestinian  thought. 

The  effort  has  been  made  to  find  ground  for  the  conception 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls  held  to  be  current  in 
Judaism.  The  existence  of  such  a  doctrine  in  Alexandrianisrh 
Judaism  in  the  time  of  Paul  is  not  to  be  denied.  It  appears  clearly 
in  Philo  {de  soinno  1:22;  de  gigan.  3,  4)  and  is  probably  reflected 
in  other  writers.  It  has  usually  been  held  to  be  reflected  in  Wis- 
dom, 8:19,  20,  but  Porter  {Yale  Studies,  p.  146)  demurs  and  thinks 
that  there  is  no  more  argument  in  this  passage  for  the  pre-exis- 
tence of  the  soul  than  there  is  for  the  pre-existence  of  the  body, 
and  his  position  certainly  is  not  without  plausibility.  Secrets  of 
Enoch,  according  to  the  translation  of  Charles,  declares  (23:5) 
that  all  souls  were  eternally  (one  ms.  has  "for  eternity")  created 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  But  Bonwetsch  translates 
"prepared"  instead  of  created.  If  this  be  the  correct  translation 
(and  in  favor  of  it  cf.  23:4;  49:2;  53:5)  pre-existence  is  probably 
not  to  be  thought  of  (cf.  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  pp.  I04ff,  245ff). 

If  we  grant,  however,  its  currency  in  Alexandrian  thought  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  it  was  frequent  or  at  all  present 
in  Judaism.  To  infer  it  for  the  latter  because  of  its  presence  in 
the  former  as  Barton  does  (J.  B.  L.  1902,  pp.  78-91)  is  a  serious 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  57 

error.  Positive  evidence  for  the  existence  of  this  doctrine  in 
Palestinian  Judaism  during  the  period  in  question  is  very  sHght. 
According  to  Weber  (pp.  204,  205,  217-20)  and  Charles  (on 
Secrets  of  Enoch  23:5)  it  was  the  ordinary  doctrine  of  later  Rab- 
binic thought.  This  ma}^  probably  be  allowed  though  one  desires 
the  attestation  of  better  authority  to  be  sure  of  it.  Josephus  says 
that  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  of  souls  was  a  dogma  of  the 
Essenes.  They,  however,  can  hardly  be  said,  even  if  Josephus' 
statement  be  accepted  without  reservation,  to  be  representative  of 
current  Jewish  thought.  The  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  have  frequently  been  supposed  to  reflect  such  a  conception 
are  themselves  obscure  and  capable  of  a  different  interpretation, 
besides  being  in  writings  clearly  affected  by  non-Jewish  thought**. 
The  best  representative  of  orthodox  Judaism  in  the  first  century  is 
probably  the  Apocalypse  of  Banich*^.  In  23  -.4,  5  it  is  said  that 
when  Adam  sinned  "and  death  was  decreed  against  those  who 
should  be  born,  then  the  multitude  of  those  who  should  be  born 
was  numbered,  and  for  that  number  a  place  was  prepared  where 
the  living  might  dwell  and  the  dead  might  be  guarded.  Unless, 
therefore,  the  number  aforesaid  is  fulfilled,  the  creature  will  not 
live  again  (for  my  spirit  is  the  creator  of  life),  and  Sheol  will 
receive  the  dead."  And  again  in  48  :6  "Thou  carest  for  the  num- 
ber which  pass  away  that  they  may  be  preserved,  and  thou  pre- 
parest  an  abode  for  those  that  are  to  be."  It  is  clear  now  that  in 
neither  of  these  two  passages  is  there  reflected  a  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence.  According  to  both  of  them,  those  who  are  to  be  born 
are  known  to  God,  and  a  place  is  prepared  for  them  according  to 
their  number.  In  the  first  passage,  at  least,  it  would  have  been 
natural  if  the  writer  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of 
souls  to  have  mentioned  it.  But  not  only  does  he  not  do  this,  but 
he  even  seems  to  exclude  such  a  conception  by  the  clear  reflection 
of  the  idea  of  the  foreknowledge  of  God. 

In  IV  Esra  4:33-43  we  have  a  reference  which  in  part  seems 
at  first  sight  to  reflect  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls. 
In  verses  41-42  we  read  "In  the  grave  the  chambers  of  souls  are 
like  the  womb ;  for  like  as  a  woman  that  travaileth  maketh  haste 
to  escape  the  anguish  of  the  travail :  even  so  do  these  places  haste 
to   deliver  those   things   that  are   committed   unto   them   from   the 


"For  a  good  discussion  of  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  see  Barton 
op.  cit.  and  cf.  the  literature  there  cited. 

"According  to  Abrahams,  Jcivish  Quarterly  Reviczv,  April,  1904,  p.  507, 
Grenfell  in  the  third  volume  of  the  Oxyrhynchus  papyri  403  says  that  Baruch 
was  originally  written  in  Greek.  If  this  should  prove  to  be  true  it  might  be 
necessary  to  change  our  conception  of  the  representative  Jewish  character 
of  the  Apocalypse. 


58  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

beginning"  (the  Latin  reads  ab  initio).  Just  what  this  expression 
"from  the  beginning"  means  is  difficult  to  say,  but  the  clause  is 
probably  distributive  and  means  that  from  the  beginning  there 
were  these  chambers  for  the  reception  of  the  dead.  That  it  does 
not  refer  to  the  doctrine  in  question  is  made  very  clear  not  only 
by  the  first  half  of  the  quotation  but  also  by  the  whole  context 
and  especially  verse  35.  Cf.  also  the  Apocalypse  of  John  7:13!?; 
6:9,  lO^^ 

The  idea  that  the  number  of  the  souls  of  men,  or  the  men,  who 
will  be.  are  known  to  God  is  of  a  piece  with  the  thought  that  the 
world  has  been  created  on  behalf  of  the  righteous  in  Israel  (Baruch 
14:19;  15:7;  21 :24)  or  as  is  more  frequently  said  in  behalf  of  his 
people.  This  latter  thought  is  vv^ell  stated  in  the  Assumption  of 
Moses  I  :i2  "For  he  hath  created  the  world  on  behalf  of  his  peo- 
ple." See  also  IV  Esra  6:55-59;  7:11;  cf.  also  8:1,  44;  Hennas, 
Vis.  II,  4:1 ;  Vis.  1,  i  :6  and  Maud.  12  :4. 

This  is  all  to  be  interpreted  as  expressing  not  the  actual  pre- 
existence  of  the  souls  of  man  or  of  the  men  themselves,  but  only 
that  all  things  are  known  beforehand  to  God.  This  is  well  ex- 
pressed in  the  Assumption  of  Moses  12:5  as  follows:  "Yea  all 
things  which  are  to  be  in  this  earth  the  Lord  hath  foreseen  and 
lo!  they  are  brought  forward  into  the  light."  And  again  in  12:13, 
"For  God  will  go  forth  who  hath  foreseen  all  things  forever."  Cf. 
12  .-4. 

We  must  conclude  that  no  evidence  has  yet  been  advanced  which 
may  by  fair  interpretation  render  it  at  all  probable  that  the  Judaism 
of  Paul's  day  held  a  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls. 

Even  if  it  could  be  conclusively  shown  that  a  doctrine  of  a  pre- 
existence  of  souls  was  held,  that  is  not  identical  with  a  personal 
pre-existence  and  the  latter  would  still  need  explanation.  On 
this  point  the  work  of  too  many  writers  suffers  from  failure  to 
make  any  discrimination  and  their  work  is  thus  not  of  much  value. 

But  Judaism  contains  two  conceptions  which  are  of  more  perti- 
nence to  our  inquiry  concerning  the  origin  of  Paul's  thought  of  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ. 

It  is  a  commonplace  of  scholarship  that  even  before  the  Chris- 
tian era  Judaism  had  developed  a  rather  sharp  distinction  between 
"this  age"  and  "the  coming  age."  The  latter  was  to  be  ushered 
in  by  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  with  all  of  its  splen- 
dor and  blessings  for  those  who  were  fortunate  enough  to  be  al- 
lowed entrance  thereto. 


^The  interpretation  by  which  Charles  and  Baldensperper  op.  cit.  p.  149 
derive  the  pre-existence  of  Moses  from  Assumption  of  Moses  i  :i4  cannot 
be  maintained. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL  S    CHRISTOLOGY  59 

But  in  addition  to  this  distinction  between  the  present  and  the 
future  there  had  been  developed,  especially  by  the  apocalyptic 
writers,  another  distinction  respecting  the  same  fundamental 
thought.  I  refer  to  the  lower  and  the  upper  or  heavenly  world. 
The  factors  which  contributed  to  this  conception  we  are  not  now 
concerned  with,  but  only  with  the  fact  of  its  currency  in  the 
thought. 

It  was  developed  apparently  in  connection  with  the  growing 
conception  of  God*".  Pie  was  no  longer  thought  of  as  a  local  tribal 
divinity  but  as  the  one  and  only  God  of  the  entire  universe.  The 
conception  of  his  oneness,  his  holiness  and  transcendentness  had 
gradually  removed  him  from  the  earth  into  a  world  of  his  own. 
Here  he  was  surrounded  by  his  angels  and  ministers  and  main- 
tained a  heavenly  kingdom  and  court.  It  was  this  world  which 
had  been  open  to  the  vision  of  the  patriarchs  and  seers  who  speak 
in  the  apocalypses.  It  was  this  world  also  which  contained  the 
mansions  for  the  blessed,  into  the  enjoyment  of  which  they  would 
come,  when  the  Messiah  should  set  up  his  kingdom  and  the  present 
evil  age  be  brought  to  an  end.  Thus  it  was  not  to  grow  out  of  the 
present  but  was  to  be  realized  by  the  destruction  of  the  present.  It 
is  in  fact  the  invisible  eternal  world  which  only  awaits  the  appointed 
time  until  it  shall  be  made  manifest.  For  a  few  of  the  most  strik- 
ing passages  see,  Enoch  1:2;  I4:9ff;  46:1,  2;  71:  5-8;  Apocalypse 
of  Banich  21:3^ ;  59 :3if;  Testaments,  Levi,  3  and  5;  Ascension  of 
Isaiah,  9:34-42. 

Paul  had  the  same  general  view.  He  looked  forward  to  the 
future  as  the  time  of  glory  and  happiness  for  the  righteous  (I 
Thess.  4:i5ff;  I  Cor.  6:14;  15:12;  Rom.  5:10;  6:4ff,  etc.)  and 
thought  of  it  as  coming  only  with  the  end  of  the  present  age.  But 
that  world  which  in  the  future  was  to  be  manifested,  already  ex- 
isted, for  he  himself  had  been  taken  up  into  it  (II  Cor.  I2:2ff) 
and  had  seen  such  glories  as  were  not  to  be  uttered.  In  it  there  await- 
ed him  the  eternal  house  not  made  with  hands  which  he  should  in  the 
future  occupy  (II  Cor.  5:1).  The  present  age  was  soon  to  pass 
away  but  he  had  his  eye  on  the  eternal  unseen  world.  "For  the 
things  which  are  seen  are  temporal ;  but  the  things  which  are  not 
seen  are  eternal"  (II  Cor.  4:18).  In  this  unseen  world  dwelt  the 
eternal  God  whose  eternal  purposes  for  men  were  being  wrought 
through  Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  16:25-27;  I  Cor.  2:y),  who  as  a  mem- 
ber of  this  heavenly  world  had  shown  himself  to  the  apostle. 

But  more  definitely  we  find  in  at  least  some  circles  of  Judaism''^ 

*'See  an  article  bv  the  oresent  writer  in  the  Biblical  World,  Jan.,  1905, 
pp.  30-42. 

*'Mathe\vs,  ^Thc  Messianic  Hope  in  the  Neiv  Testament,  p.  62,  expresses 


60  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

the  conception  of  the  actual  personal  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah*^. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Alessiah  as  reflected  in  the  literature  we  may 
rapidly  review. 

The  passage  in  Daniel  (7:13)  is  usually  said  to  have  been  in- 
tended by  the  writer  to  be  understood  only  in  a  typical  sense  (cf. 
Dan.  7:18,  22)  but  if  so  it  was  soon  personalized,  this  apparently 
being-  done  even  by  the  LXX..  (Cf.  Bousset,  op.  cit.,  p.  250,  note 
4;  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.,  p.  I34ff).  According  to  this  view 
the  origin  of  the  conception  of  the  personal  pre-existent  Messiah 
is  simply  in  a  misinterpretation  of  the  Daniel  passage.  But  Gunkel, 
{Zeitschrift  filr  VVissenschaftliche  Tlieologie,  1899,  pp.  582-90)  ex- 
presses the  opinion  that  Son  of  Man  is  a  technical  term  which  uni- 
formly means  Messiah,  and  that  this  passage  in  Daniel  reflects  a 
tradition  from  some  unknown  source  respecting  a  personal  Mes- 
siah; (so  also  Smend,  Z.  A.  W.  1885,  p.  248).  Bousset  also  {op. 
cit.,  p.  253),  thinks  that  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  all  the 
later  doctrine  concerning  the  Son  of  Man  is  due  simply  to  a  mis- 
understanding of  this  Daniel  passage.  He  thinks  that  the  Son  of 
Man  is  a  combination  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  and  a  pre-existent 
heavenly  being  whose  origin  and  descent  is  as  yet  unknown  to  vis. 
(Cf.  Behrmann,  Hand  Kommcntar  on  Dan.  7:13,  14).  While 
there  is  no  clear  evidence  of  foreign  influence,  as  both  Gunkel  and 
Bousset  would  allow,  one  cannot  but  regard  with  sympathy  their 
endeavor  to  find  some  supramundane  being  in  connection  with 
the  development  of  this  conception.  Such  a  being  has  been  sought 
in  various  ways,  not  only  in  Babylonian  mythology  (see  Hommel, 
Exp.  Times,  Vol.  XI,  pp.  341-45)  but  also  in  Persian  eschatology 
(Volter^  Z.  N.  W.  1902,  pp.  173-4).  One  can  only  say  that  so  far 
at  least  every  such  attempt  has  been  without  avaiP°. 

The  passage  (46:1,  2)  in  the  Similitudes  of  Enoch  in  which 
the  personal  JMessiah,  the  Son  of  ]\Ian,  is  introduced  is  unques- 
tionably based  upon  the  Daniel  passage  and  seems  to  form  the 
first  stage  of  advance  (if  we  except  the  LXX)  beyond  the  concep- 
tion reflected  by  the  latter.  It  reads  as  follows.  "And  there  I  saw 
One  who  had  a  head  of  days,  and  his  head  was  white  like  wool, 
and  with  Him  was  another  being  whose  countenance  had  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  man  and  his  face  was  full  of  graciousness  like  one 


a  timely  caution  against  confining  Apocalj'ptic  to  too  small  a  circle  in  Juda- 
ism.    There  was,  he  says,  no  sect  of  apocalyptic  Quietists. 

'"See  Bousset,  Die  Religion  des  Judcntums,  pp.  248-55 ;  Baldensperger, 
Die  Messianisch-Apokalyptischcn  Hoffnungen  des  Judentums,  pp.  I3iff,  I44ff ; 
ScHURER,  Geschichte,  etc.,  II.  527-30;  contra,  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus, 
pp.   128-33,  299-303. 

""On  speculations  concerning  such  a  being,  the  Urmensch,  see  Bousset, 
op.  cit.  pp.  346-49. 


ELEMENTS    TO    TAUL's    CHRISTOLOGV  6 1 

of  the  hoi}-  angels.  And  I  asked  the  angel  who  went  with  me  and 
showed  me  all  the  hidden  things  concerning  that  Son  of  Man,  who 
he  was,  and  whence  he  was.  and  why  he  went  with  the  Head  of 
Davs"?  It  is  clear  from  this  passage  that  the  Son  of  Man,  the 
Messiah,  is  conceived  under  the  form  of  a  human  being  who  differs 
only  in  the  graciousness  of  his  countenance.  It  is  not  perfectly 
clear  here,  however,  that  the  Messiah  was  thought  of  as  pre-exis- 
tent  either  actually  or  ideally",  but  his  pre-existence  is  made  clear 
by  48:3,  6;  39:6;  62:7;  70:1.  This  actual  pre-existence  accords 
well  with  his  attributes  of  universal  dominion  and  unlimited  author- 
ity   (47:3;  62:6;  69:27). 

Although  in  many  respects  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  here 
reflected  is  unique^-,  it  is  not  without  resemblances  and  apparently 
without  influence  in  later  Jewish  writings.  The  Messiah  of  the 
Psahiis  of  Solomon  though  rising  out  of  the  community  (17:23) 
has  many  features  which  ally  him  to  the  supernatural  (17:23; 
17:41,  42,  46,  47;  18:6)^^.  The  conception  of  the  INIessiah  which 
is  reflected  in  this  XVII  Psalm  seems  in  many  respects  identical 
with  that  which  may  be  termed  the  popular  conception  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  Gospels.  (Matt.  1:1;  Mark  10:47;  11:10;  12:35; 
Luke  1:69;  2:5,  11;  John  7:2-/,  31,  42;  12:34.  There  is  probably 
nowhere  given  us  in  explicit  terms  a  truer  picture  of  the  Messiah 
as  he  was  conceived  generally  in  the  time  of  Jesus  than  here.  It 
is  clear,  however,  from  at  least  parts  of  the  gospels  that  the  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah  was  a  somewhat  unsettled  one,  and  with 
him  was  associated  a  certain  degree  of  uncertainty  and  mysterious- 
ness.  He  was  to  be  of  the  line  of  David  (Matt.  1:1;  15  :22 ;  9:27; 
12:23;  20:30,  31;  22:42;  Mark  10:47,  4^!  11:10;  12:35;  Lwke 
1:32;  John  7:42),  but  apparently  was  in  some  way  distinct  from, 
and  superior  to,  the  rest  of  the  community. 

In  IV  Ecro  the  ]\Iessiah  is  conceived  as  a  pre-existent,  heavenly 
being^*  in  the  foi"m  of  a  man  while  at  the  same  time,  at  least  in 
one  passage,  he  is  supposed  to  be  of  the  seed  of  David.  Thus 
12:32:  "Hie  est  unctus,  quem  reseruavit  altissimus  in  finem  (ac- 
cording to  Schiirer  11,  527,  note  14,  all  oriental  versions  insert 
here,  qui  orietur  ex  seminc  David)   ad  eos  et  impietates  ipsorum 


"Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  364,  thinks  that  we  have  here  only 
an  ideal  pre-existence. 

"^It  is  probably  not  so  unique  as  Charles  {in  loco)  makes  it.  Baldensper- 
ger,  np.  cif.  p.  I38ff,  apparently  thinks  that  it  became  the  ruling  conception 
of  Judaism.     The  evidence  for  this,  however,  is  not  altogether  conclusive. 

''^Charles,  note  on  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  30:1,  thinks  that  18:6  reflects 
the  notion  of  pre-existence.     But  see  Ryle  and  James  ad  loc. 

"See  also  Apocalypse  of  John,  12:1-6,  and  Porter,  Art.  Revelation,  Book 
of,  Hastings  Dictionary. 


62  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

arguet  illos  et  de  iniustitiis  ipsorum  et  infulsiet  coram  ipsis  spret- 
iones  eorum."  And  again  in  13  .-3  we  read :  "Et  vidi  et  ecce  con- 
volabat  ille  homo  cum  nubibus  caeli,  et  ubi  vultum  suum  convertebat 
ut  consideraret  tremebant  omnia  quae  sub  eo  videbantur,"  (cf.  vs. 
5if,  vs.  12).  Also  13:25,  26:  "Interpretationes  visionis  haec  quia 
vidisti  virum  ascendentem  de  corde  maris,  ipse  est  quem  consuerat 
altissimus  multis  temporibus,  qui  per  semetipsum  liberabit  creatur- 
am  suam,  et  ipse  disponet  qui  derilicti  sunt."  (Cf.  13:32,  5iff; 
14 :9)^^ 

Whether  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  reflects  the  conception  of  a 
pre-existent  Messiah  at  all,  and  if  so  under  what  form,  is  not  alto- 
gether clear.  Charles  thinks  that  it  does,  on  the  basis  of  30:1: 
"And  it  will  come  to  pass  after  these  things  when  the  time  of  the 
advent  of  the  Messiah  is  fulfilled  he  will  return  in  glory,  then  all 
who  have  fallen  asleep  in  hope  (of  him)  will  rise  again."  It  must 
be  said  however  that  the  evidence  is  not  very  much  in  its  favor, 
(cf.  7:22;  29:3;  39:7).  But  in  any  event  a  certain  mysteriousness 
seems  to  surround  the  advent  of  the  Messiah. 

In  the  second  century  this  view  is  taken  for  granted  in  Justin's 
Dialogue  with  Trypho.  Thus  in  chapter  8,  Trypho  states  that  the 
Messiah  is  to  be  born  among  men,  but  will  be  concealed  and  remain 
unconscious  of  his  messiahship  until  he  is  anointed  by  Elijah  and 
made  manifest  to  alP*'.  (cf.  chap.  44,  but  see  chap  49). 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Messiah  was  not  uniformly  conceived 
during  this  period.  The  popular  conception  we  are  not  able  ac- 
curately to  determine,  but  so  far  as  it  is  given  to  us  by  implication, 
it  seems  closest  to  the  conception  reflected  in  the  Psalms  of  Solo- 
mon, the  gospels  and  possibly  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  Although 
the  Messiah  is  of  the  seed  of  David  and  therejay  arises  out  of  the 
community  itself,  it  is  the  uniform  testimony  of  all  the  available 
evidence  that  to  him  are  attributed  certain  characteristics  which 
ally  him  with  the  superhuman  and  supernatural.  Just  how  wide- 
spread was  the  conception  which  appears  in  the  book  of  Enoch  and 
the  IV  Ezra  we  are  unable  to  say.  At  any  rate  we  are  warranted  in 
saying  that  in  at  least  some  circles  of  Judaism  the  Messiah  was 
conceived  as  a  pre-existent  heavenly  being.  The  same  circle  who 
thus  conceived  him,  also  thought  of  him  as  existing  in  the  likeness 
of  a  man  diflfering  principally  in  the  majesty  and  glory  of  his  ap- 


"Cf.  Sib.  Orac.  V.  256  (Terry's  tr.  346),  V.  414  (Terry's  tr.  556).  See 
Schurer,  3rd  ed.  III.,  pp.  442,  443. 

""The  same  view  was  common  also  in  later  Judaism.  The  Targum  on 
Micah  4 :8  says  that  the  Messiah  will  be  born  at  Jerusalem  or  Bethlehem 
and  will  be  caught  up  (to  heaven)  until  the  time  of  his  appearance.  See 
Edersheim,  Life  and  Times,  Vol.  I.,  p.  I7iff;  Baldensperger,  Selhstbewusst- 
sein  Jesu  i,  pp.  138-42. 


^       OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 

iLfFORNVh- 


ELEMENTS    TO    FAULTS    CHRISTOLOGY  63 

pearance^^.  It  goes  without  saying  that  his  prerogatives  were  con- 
sidered to  be  of  divine  origin  and  character.  He  was  in  the  form 
of  God,  Hved  under  the  same  conditions,  and  was  his  deputy  with 
almost  unlimited  dignity  and  authority. 

In  developing  his  Christology  then  Paul  had  ample  warrant  in 
Judaism  for  his  doctrine  of  pre-existence  and  without  question  it 
exercised  its  influence  upon  him^^.  It  is  at  the  very  least  more 
than  possible,  that  Paul  even  in  his  pre-Christian  life  held  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah.  This  has  in  its  sup- 
port the  positive  evidence  that  in  so  many  respects  he  shows  kin- 
ship with  the  best  apocalyptic  thought. 

The  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  was  more,  however, 
than  a  simple  attributing  to  him  by  Paul  the  Christian  thinker,  the 
qualities  of  the  Messiah  of  Saul  the  Pharisee  and  student  of  Rab- 
binic theology.  It  was  not  a  simple  inference  from  a  formal  ac- 
ceptance of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  A  very  essential  element  was  that 
experience  of  Paul  which  led  him  not  only  to  the  initial  acceptance 
of  Jesus'  messiahship,  but  also  to  place  him  at  the  right  hand  of 
God. 

As  the  exalted  Lord  of  glory  Jesus  had  appeared  to  Paul  (Gal. 
I  :i6;  I  Cor.  9:1 ;  15  :8 ;  II  Cor.  4:6),  and  as  such  he  was  the  image 
of  God,  for  in  his  appearance  was  given  to  Paul  the  light  which 
proceeds  from  the  knowledge  of  God  as  it  shines  in  and  through 
the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  (II  Cor.  4:4-6).  The  Lord  whom  he  had 
seen  in  the  vision  of  light  on  the  road  to  Damascus  was  the  ex- 
pression and  the  revelation  of  the  God  whom  he  had  not  seen  and 
who  dwelt  in  light  unapproachable.  It  is  thus  the  exalted  Christ 
who  forms  the  center  of  Paul's  vision  and  the  point  of  departure 
for  his  Christological  doctrine.  He  went  from  that  back  through 
the  humiliation  of  the  earthly  life  to  the  pre-existent  Christ.  It  is 
one  and  the  same  person  whether  pre-existent,  historical  or  ex- 
alted, but  it  is  the  latter  phase  of  existence  which  forms  the  im- 
mediate object  of  his  knowledge  and  his  experience.  He  knew 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  with  power  (Rom.i  :4)  the  Lord  of  glory 

'"In  addition  to  the  references  cited  above,  see  Bousset,  op.  cit.  p.  218; 
Baldensperger,  ofy.  cit.  pp.  I04ff;  Porter,  Art.  Revelation  Book  of,  Hastings 
Diet.,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  255ff;  Barton,  op.  cit.  pp.  78-91,  American  Journal  of 
Theology,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  776-801.  Eschatological  questions  were  a  matter  of 
debate  between  the  schools  of  Hillcl  and  Shammai,  particularly  as  regards 
resurrection  and  future  reward.  See  Backer,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  Vol. 
I.,  pp.  15-16. 

^The  question  of  whether  this  doctrine  was  developed  wholly  within 
Judaism  or  was  due,  as  Gunkel.  Bousset  and  others  think,  to  foreign  influ- 
ence, does  not  call  for  consideration.  However  it  arose,  it  had  become  thor- 
oughly domesticated  in  Judaism  by  Paul's  time  and  it  was  in  this  form  that 
it  came  to  him. 


64  IJOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

(I  Cor.  2:8)  the  heavenly  one  (I  Cor.  15:47-49).  As  he  knew 
Christ  then,  he  belonged  essentially  to  the  heavenly  world.  And 
it  was  this  high  conception  of  Christ  as  the  image  of  God  and  the 
mediator  of  the  new  life  to  men  that  formed  the  essential  element 
in  Paul's  Christology.  In  the  light  of  his  conception  of  the  heav- 
enly world  as  the  eternal  world,  in  the  contrast  of  which  with  this 
world  the  space  element  was  quite  as  prominent  as  the  time  ele- 
ment, and  particularly  in  the  light  of  the  well  known  conception  of 
the  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah  at  least  in  Apocalyptic  circles,  the 
development  of  the  conception  of  Christ's  existence  previous  to  his 
coming  to  earth  is  amply  accounted  for^^. 

Two  points  seem  to  call  for  a  remark  here.  The  first  concerns 
itself  with  the  manner  of  the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  Paul  of 
course  held  to  the  natural  birth  of  Jesus  from  the  seed  of  David 
(Rom.  1:3;  9:5;  Gal.  4:4;  cf.  Phil.  2:7).  Now  it  is  said  by  Dal- 
man  (op.  cit.,  p.  131)  that  Judaism  never  knew  anything  of  a  Mes- 
siah pre-existent  "before  birth  as  a  human  being."  He  is,  he  says, 
"to  make  his  appearance  as  a  fully  developed  personality."  If 
this  be  true  Paul  would  seem  in  this  point,  then,  to  be  leaning  on 
some  outside  support.  It  should  be  noticed,  however :  ( i )  That 
Dalman's  remark,  although  generally  speaking  justified,  needs  a 
slight  qualification.  The  conception  which  we  have  above  seen  was 
not  uncommon  concerning  the  Messiah  (as  in  the  Gospel  of  John, 
Revelation  12:1-6,  Trypho  and  the  Targums)  in  which  he  is  hidden 
(in  heaven?)  for  a  time  after  birth  and  then  comes  to  men  sud- 
denly and  mysteriously,  is  evidently  an  efifort  to  combine  the  ele- 
ments of  pre-existence  and  of  natural  birth  in  the  one  person,  the 
Messiah"".  (2)  The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  12  :32,  combines  the  con- 
ception of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Messiah  with  that  of  his  origin 
from  the  house  of  David  (cf.  p.  59f).  In  this  writing  such  scholars 
as  Gunkel,  Schiirer  and  Porter  fail  to  see  any  direct  Christian 
influence.  If  they  are  correct  and  we  are  not  to  regard  this  as  a 
Christian  interpolation  it  is  the  efifort  of  a  Jew  in  approximately 
the  period  in  which  Paul  wrote.  Charles  and  Edersheim  think  the 
book  shows  direct  Christian  influence  and  I  have  never  been  able 
to  persuade  myself  that  such  is  not  the  correct  view.  This  point 
cannot  therefore  be  pressed.     (3)    Paul  himself  lays  no  stress  on 


°°Thc  doctrine  of  pre-existence  as  the  Jew  conceived  it,  leaves  unanswered 
the  question  of  ultimate  origin.  Pre-existence  simply  means  existence  in  the 
heavenly  world  previous  to  appearance  on  earth.  Paul  of  course  is  somewhat 
more  explicit. 

""Incidentally  this  strengthens  also  the  argument  above  against  the  cur- 
rency of  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls.  Had  such  a  doctrine  been 
current  it  would  obviously  have  been  unnecessary  to  resort  to  this  extremely 
unnatural  method  of  combination. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  65 

the  point.  In  only  one  passage  (Gal.  4:4)  is  there  certainly  a  com- 
bination of  the  two  elements,  pre-existence  and  birth,  and  even 
there  only  the  latter  is  at  all  prominent.  The  doctrine  of  the  virgin 
birth  has  left  no  trace  on  his  thought  at  any  point.  In  the  classic 
passage  for  pre-existence  and  incarnation  the  idea  of  birth  seems 
to  be  quite  out  of  mind  and  the  conditions  of  Christ's  public  life 
only,  to  be  made  prominent*'^.  (4)  The  Greek  conception  no  more 
than  the  Jewish  included  the  idea  of  birth  when  a  pre-existent  being 
assumed  a  temporal  earthly  existence.  Perhaps  it  even  more  clear- 
ly excluded  it.  We  gain  nothing  by  assuming  a  Greek  influence 
upon  Paul.  His  statements  arc  accounted  for  by  the  historical  facts 
of  his  Jewish  education  and  Christian  experience  quite  as  fully  as 
by  an  appeal  to  Greek  thought,  and  more  naturally. 

The  second  point  concerns  the  meaning  for  the  pre-existent  one 
of  the  assumption  of  temporal  existence,  the  change  involved. 
There  is  no  possible  question  that  Paul  connected  with  Christ's 
coming  to  earth  the  deepest  humiliation.  This  is  expressed  un- 
equivocally in  I  Cor.  8 :6 ;  Phil.  2  :5-8  and  is  clearly  implied  also  in 
other  passages  (cf.  above).  Now  it  is  perfectly  apparent  that  in 
developing  this  conception  the  apostle  is  leaving  Jewish  soil.  So 
far  as  I  know  there  is  not  a  hint  that  during  this  period  the  advent 
of  the  Messiah  was  conceived  in  Judaism  as  attended  in  any  sense 
by  humiliation.  (The  admission  of  Trypho,  chaps,  68,  69,  90,  can- 
not be  taken  too  seriously).  If  there  is  one  thing  clear,  it  is  that 
the  sufifering  of  Jesus  ran  diametrically  counter  to  the  notion  of 
every  Jew  concerning  the  Messiah.  He  was  to  come  in  glory  and 
terrific  judgment,  and  that  by  a  revelation  or  manifestation.  It 
involved  merely  a  change  of  the  place  of  operation,  and  nothing 
more. 

Harnack  (History  of  Dogma,  I,  pp.  318-32)  regards  Paul's  doc- 
trine as  a  long  step  toward  the  Greek  conception  (cf.  Baldensper- 
GEN,  op.  cit.,  p.  I49ff).  Concerning  this  it  may  be  said,  (i)  The 
great  humiliation  of  Christ  Paul  conceived  as  connected  with  and 
consisting  in  his  death.  He  humbled  himself  even  to  the  death  of 
the  cross  and  it  was  for  this  reason  that  God  gave  him  the  name 
above  every  name  (Phil.  2:9;  Rom.  5:18,  19).  This  one  fact  con- 
stitutes almost  the  whole  historical  significance  of  Jesus  for  Paul. 
The  citation  of  particular  passages  would  be  superfluous.  (2)  Ap- 
parently, however,  Paul  goes  beyond  this  in  making  the  incarnation 
itself  a  humiliation.  Thus  Christ  came  in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh 
of  sin  (Rom.  8:3)  ;  though  rich  he  became  poor  (II  Cor.  8:9)  and 

"It  is  sometimes  said  (e.  g.  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  I.,  p.  105,  note 
2)  that  the  doctrine  of  prc-existencc  and  of  birth,  virgin  or  natural,  are  con- 
tradictory. It  certainly  was  not  so  considered  by  the  Fathers,  possibly  even 
as  early  as  Ignatius.     See  Hoben,  The  Virgin  Birth. 


66  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

he  emptied  himself  (Phil.  2  :5f).  Now  on  the  first  passage  it  should 
be  noticed  that  the  condemnation  of  sin  in  the  flesh  is  associated 
in  the  verse  and  is  really  the  prominent  thought,  this  being  clear  not 
only  from  the  context  but  also  from  the  verb  forms  used.  From 
6:6ff,  cf.  3:24,  25,  and  other  passages  this  condemnation  is  seen  to 
occur  by  the  death  and  not  the  life  of  Christ.  So  that  here  again 
the  passage  reflects  a  humiliation  which  if  connected  with  the  tak- 
ing of  flesh  at  all  is  seen  to  be  so  in  the  light  of  the  result  and  as 
the  apostle  viewed  it  the  purpose  of  that  assumption  of  flesh.  The 
conception  of  Christ  becoming  poor  evidently  makes  prominent  not 
so  much  the  actual  experience  of  Christ  in  his  historical  life  as  the 
deprivation  he  suffered  in  contrast  with  his  previous  condition  of 
riches.  Thus  it  is  not  a  positive  assumption  of  that  which  is  defiling 
and  humiliating,  but  a  self  abnegation  and  deprivation  of  that  prev- 
iously enjoyed  upon  which  the  apostle  insists'^-.  Likewise  the 
emptying  of  himself  and  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  brings  into 
prominence  not  the  positively  humiliating  character  of  the  present 
but  the  loss  of  that  previously  possessed  and  enjoyed.  This  also 
receives  color  from  the  connection.  So  that  at  no  time  does  Paul 
speak  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ  except  either  with  the  thought  of 
his  death  or  with  the  conception  of  his  pre-existent  state  in  mind. 
The  effort  to  make  Paul  Greek  here  involves  then,  ( i )  a  too  narrow 
view  of  the  passages  and  (2)  a  misinterpretation  of  Paul's  anti- 
thesis of  flesh  and  spirit.  This  latter  is  an  ethical  not  a  psycholo- 
gical contrast.  The  antithesis  is  predominantly  between  the  flesh 
and  the  spirit  of  God  (not  m.an,  see  esp.  Gal  5:16-26;  Rom.  8:5) 
and  fundamentally  is  not  Greek  at  all"^. 

In  discussing  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  above  it  was  men- 
tioned that  in  I  Cor.  8:6  and  10:4  is  reflected  the  mediatorial  cre- 
atorship  of  Christ.  That  topic  is  however  important  enough  for 
separate  discussion  and  to  that  we  must  now  turn. 


°^The  poverty  of  Christ  means  our  riches.  Thus  again,  his  death  must 
color  the  conception,  for  it  is  not  Paul's  thought  that  Christ  effected  good  for 
us  except  through  death. 

"The  question     whether,   unknown  to  Paul,  there  really  lurks  in  his 
view  a  docetism  does  not  now  concern  us. 


III. 

COSMIC  FUNCTION. 

Ill  the  discussion  of  this  phase  of  the  apostle's  thought  we  en- 
counter a  problem  which  has  not  called  for  serious  attention  in  the 
previous  discussion.  We  are  here  face  to  face  with  the  question  of 
the  sources  upon  which  our  discussion  is  to  be  based.  The  sources 
thus  far  used  are  so  generally  recognized  as  authentic  that  it  was 
unnecessary  even  to  refer  to  the  question.  But  here  we  find  a  very 
different  situation. 

The  cosmic  function  or  significance  of  Christ  is,  to  be  sure,  re- 
ferred to  in  the  sources  of  which  we  have  already  made  use  and  of 
this  we  shall  take  due  notice  later,  but  it  is  only  in  Colossians  and 
Ephesians  that  the  subject  may  be  said  to  receive  anything  ap- 
proaching a  full  statement.  The  authenticity  of  both  of  these  let- 
ters is,  however,  still  seriously  questioned  by  good  critical  scholars 
and  perhaps  few  would  regard  the  matter  as  finally  settled.  The 
question  is  too  large  for  any  attempt  at  a  complete  study  here,  and 
the  most  that  can  be  done  is  to  justify  the  use  of  them  and  the 
method  which  will  be  pursued  in  the  subsequent  discussion. 

The  situation  as  respects  the  two  letters  is  not  the  same.  It  is 
quite  uniformly  agreed  by  scholars  of  all  schools  that  the  genuine- 
ness of  Colossians  is  attested  by  very  much  stronger  evidence  than 
can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  Ephesians.  So  long  as  the  claim  of 
Baur  and  his  followers  that  the  heresy  which  forms  the  background 
of  Colossians  and  the  object  of  its  polemic  was  a  fullfledged  gnos- 
ticism, remained  unrefuted,  its  Pauline  authorship  could  hardly  be 
maintained,  for  no  fullgrown  gnostic  system  was  known  to  have 
existed  before  the  second  century.  But  this  position  of  Baur  has 
steadily  lost  ground.  Two  factors  have  contributed  to  this  re- 
sult. 

The  first  is  the  generally  admitted  fact  that  incipient  gnosticism 
is  to  be  recognized  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  first  Christian  cen- 
tury".   This  is  granted  by  Hilgenfeld,  Lipsius,  and  even  by  Schiirer 

^The  work  of  Friedlander,  Der  Vorchristlichc  Jiidisclt^  Gnosticismus, 
though  extravagant  in  some  positions,  has  shown  that  Judaism  had  some  sort 
of  gnosticism  even  in  the  pre-Christian  period. 

67 


68  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

and  Holtzmann,  both  of  whom  still  deny  the  authenticity  of  Colos- 
sians.  This  gnostic  thought  is  seen  to  afford  ample  occasion  for 
any  antignostic  polemic  that  the  letter  contains. 

'  The  second  fact  is  the  recognition  on  independent  grounds  that 
the  heresy  opposed  in  the  letters  is  at  least  not  wholly  gnostic,  but 
is  in  some  way  related  to  Judaism.  Hort  has  contended  that  it  is 
wholly  Jewish.  (See  Jud.  Christianity,  p.  ii6f).  Whether  its 
Jewish  elements  show  affinity  with  Essenism  (Lightfoot,  B.  Weiss) 
or  with  Alexandrianism  (McGififert,  Von  Soden)  or  with  some 
other  contemporary  phase  of  Judaism  (Haupt)  is  in  debate,  but  the 
central  fact  is  generally  admitted*'^ 

So  far,  then,  as  concerns  the  heresy  which  is  opposed  in  this 
letter,  no  appeal  can  be  made  to  it  as  arguing  against  Pauline  au- 
thorships®. 

The  argument  drawn  from  vocabulary  and  style  has  been  urged 
by  several  scholars  from  MayerhofT  down,  but  it  is  very  inconclu- 
sive. It  is  quite  possible  to  collect  just  as  striking  peculiarities  in 
the  epistles  generally  regarded  as  authentic.  Besides,  no  one  who 
thinks  vigorously  can  be  held  to  the  same  form  of  expression  every 
time  he  speaks.  A  man  of  the  vigor  and  calibre  of  Paul  will  not 
fail  to  develop  new  forms  of  expression  and  to  employ  a  somewhat 
different  vocabulary  as  the  conditions  change  to  which  he  must 
adapt  his  speech  or  writing  in  order  to  make  it  effective'''^. 

The  objection  to  the  authenticity  of  the  epistle  drawn  from  its 
Christological  conception  is,  as  it  is  frequently  urged,  a  begging  of 
the  question.  Pfleiderer  (Paiilinism,  Eng.  tr.  Vol.  II,  pp.  loi-ii) 
speaking  not  only  for  himself  but  for  others  (as  e.  g.  Holtzmann 
and  Schiirer)  declares  that  the  Christology  here  not  only  advances 
beyond  anything  else  found  in  Paul,  but  also  rests  upon  a  logos 
doctrine  similar  to  that  found  in  the  fourth  gospel  and  drawn  from 
the  Alexandrian  philosophy,  and  on  these  grounds  the  authenticity 
of  the  letter,  he  thinks,  must  be  denied. 

Now  neither  of  these  arguments  can  properly  be  used  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  epistle.  This  is  not  the  place  to  decide  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  the  Christological  doctrine  (that  must  be 
done  after  the  doctrine  itself  has  been  examined),  but  the  latter 
part  of  the  statement  involves  the  clearly  unwarranted  assumption 
that  the  apostle  could  not  possibly  himself  have  come  under  Alex- 
andrian influence.     This  Pfleiderer  himself  does  not  believe. 


"^^It  is  still  denied,  e.  g.,  by  Juelicher  {Einleitung,  p.  88f),  who  finds  no 
specific  Jewish  tinge  in  the  Colossian  heresy. 

'"The  statement  of  Weiss,  Genuineness  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  p.  46, 
that  the  "conception  we  form  of  these  (errorists)  will  determine  our  answer 
to  the  question  whether  the  letter  is  genuine  or  not,"  is,  in  the  light  of  the 
present  condition  of  criticism,   without   sufficient  ground. 

"'Cf.  Aeeott,  Int.  Crit.  Com.,  pp.  lii-liv. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  69 

The  former  assertion  may  be  accepted  with  qualification.  It  is 
readily  admitted  that  the  Christology  of  this  letter  assumes  a  defin- 
iteness  and  an  elaborateness  not  previously  expressed  in  the  Pauline 
literature.  But  at  the  same  time  it  may  just  as  strongly  be  insisted 
that  the  elements  of  the  conception  here  reflected  are  all  in  the 
previous  genuine  writings  of  Paul.  If  one  take  the  position  that 
the  apostle  having  once  given  expression  to  certain  statements  is 
incapable  of  going  beyond  these  under  any  conditions,  nothing  re- 
mains to  be  said,  except  to  express  dissent.  Once  grant,  however, 
the  Pauline  character  and  origin  of  Philippians  (which  is  very  gen- 
erally done,  even  by  Holtzmann,  Pfleiderer  and  Schiirer)  and  no 
strong  argument  remains  against  the  authenticity  of  Colossians  on 
the  score  of  its  Christology. 

Of  course  it  does  not  follow  that  a  denial  of  the  Christology  to 
the  apostle  carries  with  it  the  refusal  to  allow  to  him  any  develop- 
ment. It  may  even  be  allowed  that  the  thought  is  a  natural  devel- 
opment of  Pauline  thought  but  yet  not  probable  within  the  limits 
of  his  own  lifetime.  Such  may  perhaps  be  the  thought  of  Pfleiderer. 
But  when  it  is  recalled  that  almost  no  one  (if  indeed  any  one  at 
all)  in  the  early  church  understood  Paul  it  seems  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  that  any  one  should  have  written  this  genuinely  Pauline 
document  except  the  apostle  himself. 

The  force  of  this  position  has  gradually  made  itself  felt  and 
there  is  a  growing  recognition  on  the  part  of  critical  scholarship 
that  we  have  here  a  genuine  production  of  the  apostle"^.  In  using 
it  then  as  a  source  for  the  exposition  of  the  cosmic  function  of 
Christ  we  not  only  follow  our  own  firm  conviction  but  have  the  sup- 
port also  of  the  vast  majority  of  scholars. 

With  Ephesians  the  case  is  different.  The  ratio  of  scholars  who 
defend  it  to  those  who  deny  its  authenticity  is  just  about  the  inverse 
proportion  of  the  defenders  and  antagonists  of  the  genuineness  of 
Colossians.  Whereas  there  is  great  preponderance  of  scholarship 
in  favor  of  the  latter,  Ephesians  is  wholly  rejected  by  many  of  the 
best  critical  students.  It  is  accepted  by  Haupt  (Meyer)  and  with 
reluctance  by  Moffatt  {op.  cit.,  pp.  225-33).  McGiffert  {Apostolic 
■^S^>  P-  382f)  argues  for  it,  as  does  Bacon  {Introduction,  ii7ff), 
and  it  is  defended  with  zeal  by  Abbott  {Int.  Crit.  Com.)  and  Zalin 
{Einleitung,  2  ed.  I,  p.  348ff).     Jiilicher  {Einleitung,  pp.  94ff)  and 


^^It  is  so  regarded  by  Harnack,  Jiilicher,  Einleitung,  pp.  84-91;  Abbott, 
Int.  Crit.  Com;  Von  Soden,  Hand  Kom.;  Haupt- (Meyer),  1902;  Moffatt, 
Historical  Nezv  Testament,  214-17;  Bacon,  Int.  to  N.  T.,  pp.  55-111; 
McGiffert,  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  372f,  and  many  others.  Against  it  are  Schiirer, 
Holtzmann,  A''.  T.  Theol  II.;  Pfleiderer,  Urchristentum,  2  Vol.  H. ;  210-26. 
Holtzmann  and  J.  Weiss  regard  it  as  containing  a  nucleus  of  authentic  ma- 
terial much  interpolated.    So  also  Von  Soden  until  recently. 


70  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

Harnack  (Chronologie  2:1,  p.  239f;  History  of  Dogma  I.  p.  96), 
are  unable  to  decide  either  for  or  against  it. 

That  it  is  closely  related  to  Colossians  in  style  and  thought  is 
recognized  by  all  writers  and  it  was  this  fact  which  furnished  the 
basis  for  the  well-known  theory  of  Holtzmann.  His  view  has  met 
very  little  acceptance  but  the  facts  which  formed  the  starting  point 
of  his  work  are  generally  conceded. 

The  two  points  which  seem  to  be  urged  most  strongly  against 
the  epistle  are  its  advance  beyond  Colossians  as  respects  (i)  the 
church  and  (2)  its  Christology.  Now  the  exalted  rank  of  the 
church  and  its  intimate  relation  to  Christ  is  but  little  be3^ond  the 
conception  implied  in  such  passages  as  Rom.  12  4,  5  and  I  Cor. 
12:12-27  (cf.  I  Cor.  10:32;  15:9).  Here  not  only  is  the  unity  of 
the  universal  church  clearly  implied  but  Christ  is  the  indwelling 
controlling  spirit,  even  as  the  vital  energy  of  a  body.  The  con- 
ception entertained  of  Christ  is  not  fundamentally  beyond  that  of 
Colossians  and  in  i  :i8,  24  of  the  latter  we  have  almost  the  precise 
language  which  is  used  in  Ephesians.  Even  Pfleiderer  {Paulinism, 
II,  pp.  170-71 ;  Urchristentum  2  ed.  II,  p.  214)  sees  that  their  Chris- 
tology but  not  necessarily  their  Christological  interest  is  identical. 

When  Colossians  is  accepted  as  genuine  there  is  really  no  reason 
for  rejecting  Ephesians.  This  is  acknowledged  by  several  scholars 
(e.  g.  by  McGififert,  Moffatt,  Haupt,  apparently  Harnack  and 
Jiilicher),  and  will  probably  receive  more  and  more  consideration. 
Though  recognizing  that  the  question  is  still  open  and  that  the 
majority  of  scholars  are  opposed,  I  shall  use  Ephesians  along  with 
Colossians  as  giving  the  genuine  Pauline  Christological  develop- 
ment and  conceptions.  This  is  the  less  open  to  objection  since  the 
present  task  has  to  do  with  the  Christological  material  only  and 
that  in  any  case  is  Pauline  and  identical  with  that  of  Colossians. 

As  has  already  been  indicated  it  is  generally  recognized  that  in 
these  two  epistles  Paul,  at  least  in  clearness  and  fulness  of  state- 
ment, goes  beyond  anything  found  in  his  earlier  letters.  But  this 
will  be  shown  in  the  exposition  below  to  be  amply  accounted  for. 
Moreover,  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians  some  of  whom  had 
spoken  and  acted  in  a  depreciatory  manner  with  respect  to  the  mes- 
sage which  he  had  delivered  to  them,  because  from  a  philosophic 
point  of  view  it  was  inferior  to  that  of  ApoUos,  he  intimated  to 
them  that  if  he  had  chosen  to  do  so  he  could  have  given  them  a 
philosophy  that  w^ould  have  met  all  of  their  demands.  He  had  such 
a  philosophy  but  with  all  their  boasted  speculative  powers  it  was 
beyond  their  apprehension  and  he  only  used  it  with  those  who  were 
wise.  This  philosophy  must  have  resembled  that  which  he  pro- 
pounds in  Colossians  and  Ephesians  for  it  had  to  do  with  Christ  as 
the  power     (Sijvafxlg)     and  the  wisdom     (oocpia)    of  God.    It  was 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUl's    CHRISTOLOGY  7 1 

a  revelation  of  the  mystery  that  "hath  been  hidden,  which  God  fore- 
ordained before  the  worlds  unto  our  glory"  (I  Cor.  2:7;  Rom. 
16:25-27;  cf.  Eph.  1:4-12;  3:3ff,  9-11)-  This  mystery  was  the 
universal  redemption  possible  to  every  human  being  (Rom.  11:30- 
36;  Gal.  3:28;  I  Cor.  i  :24;  3:9!? ;  cf.  Eph.  3:5,  6).  That  which  is 
hinted  at  or  implied  in  these  numerous  passages  is  simply  more  ex- 
plicitly and  elaborately  stated  in  the  imprisonment  epistles. 

The  two  most  explicit  passages  concerning  the  cosmic  function 
of  Christ,  that  appear  in  Paul's  earlier  writings  are  I  Cor.  8 :6  and 
I  Cor.  10:4.     These  may  be  briefly  considered. 

In  the  first  of  these  we  have  God  and  Christ  associated  together 
and  at  the  same  time  in  contrast  with  the  many  so-called  heathen 
gods,  whether  of  earth  or  heaven.  Though  they  have  many  gods 
and  many  lords  there  are  for  the  Christians  only  one  God  and  one 
Lord.  It  is  worth  while  to  note  that  it  is  in  a  context  in  which 
the  apostle  is  explicitly  repudiating  the  polytheistic  conceptions  of 
the  gentiles,  that  he  associates  Christ  with  God  representing  the 
two  as  together  claiming  the  full  and  undivided  allegiance  of  those 
who  bear  the  Christian  name.  Plainly  stating  that  God  is  at  once 
the  source  of  all  things  and  the  goal,  he  does  not  hesitate,  but 
seems  to  consider  it  a  matter  of  course,  to  associate  with  him 
Christ;  not  indeed  as  either  source  or  goal,  but  as  the  agent  or 
mediator"^  of  God  not  only  in  creation  but  also  in  history.  This  on 
the  face  of  it  seems  an  advance  beyond  Rom.  11 :36  where  God  is 
declared  to  be  not  only  the  primary  source  and  the  end  or  goal  of 
all  things,  but  also  the  immediate  and  solitary  agent  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  all  things.  The  latter,  however,  is  the  later  writ- 
ing and  difficulty  (if  such  there  be)  is  not  to  be  solved  on  the  sup- 
position of  development.  It  is  rather  in  the  light  of  the  context  in 
Romans  that  the  difficulty  vanishes. 

The  jtdvTa  of  the  present  passage  is  not  to  be  explained  as 
meaning  the  things  of  the  new  creation  for  that  is  distinctly  ex- 
cluded by  the  context.  The  I'l-'ft;  hC  aiJtou  refers  to  the  media- 
torial activity  of  Christ,  not  only  in  originating  but  also  in  sus- 
taining the  new  creation  (Gal.  6:15;  II  Cor.  5:17).  The  Tidvxn 
refers  back  to  the  same  things  that  have  their  origin  in  God.  i.  e. 
to  creation.  The  express  mention  of  the  jtdvra  and  the  ■)]\.ielc,  n 
both  clauses,  and  the  horizon  of  the  context  seem  to  be  a  clear  in- 
dication that  the  jidvxa  is  intended  in  its  broadest  sense.  For  in 
the  previous  verse  the  apostle  has  excluded  so-called  gods  and  lords 

°^B  aeth  Epiph  4S4  read   Si    OV.    In  that  case  Christ  would  be  associated 
with  God  as  the  immediate  end  of  creation  and  not  as  agent  his  mediatorship 
in  the  progress  of  humanity  would  be  implied,  but  it  would  not  of  necessity 
mean  his  pre-existence  or  cosmic  activity. 


72  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

from  "heaven  and  earth."  His  argument  is  deficient  if  by  .-rdvTa 
he  refers  in  either  clause  merely  to  the  "new  creation."  It  must 
signify  all  the  things  of  heaven  and  earth.  This  presupposes  the 
pre-existence  of  Christ  which  as  we  have  seen  is  expressed  in  this 
same  letter,  and  unequivocally  assigns  him  the  activity  of  agent 
in  creation.  This  is  done  too  in  a  casual  way  not  as  if  broached 
for  the  first  time,  but  as  if  quite  a  familiar  thought  to  his  readers, 
and  a  conception  generally  held  by  them.  It  will  appear  later  that 
this  association  of  the  mediatorial  activity  of  Christ  in  creation 
with  his  agency  in  mediating  the  new  life  of  the  believer  which 
also  has  its  source  in  God,  is  not  without  its  significance. 

In  the  second  passage,  I  Cor.  lo  -.4,  we  have  another  phase  of  the 
mediatorial  activity  of  Christ  set  forth.  The  passage  is  manifestly 
metaphorical  for  no  one  supposes  that  Paul  means  in  any  sense  to 
identify  Christ  with  a  rock.  Nor  can  it  be  held  that  he  means  to 
say  that  the  rock  which  furnished  the  gushing  living  water  for  the 
Israelites  is  simply  a  type  of  Christ,  the  source  of  spiritual  life. 
The  language  of  the  apostle  here  seems  reminiscent  of  at  least  three 
different  phenomena  which  appeared  in  connection  with  the  march 
of  the  children  of  Israel  across  the  desert.  The  first  is  the  rock  from 
which  burst  forth  the  water  to  quench  the  parching  thirst  of  the 
Israelites,  to  which  we  have  already  referred.  This  underlies  his 
statement  concerning  the  spiritual  drink  which  they  had.  But  he 
also  mentions  that  they  had  the  same  spiritual  food  which  is  a  clear 
reminiscence  of  the  manna  which  fell  from  heaven  for  them.  And 
in  the  third  place  he  suggests  that  the  spiritual  rock  from  which 
the  Israelites  drank  "was  following  them."  In  this  it  is  but  natural 
to  see  a  reference  to  the  pillar  of  fire  by  night  and  the  cloud  by  day 
which  went  before  them.  He  then  declares  that  the  spiritual  rock 
which  was  following  them  and  from  which  they  all  had  spiritual 
drink  was  (fjv  ^^^  eativ),  Christ.  Thus  Christ  is  not  only 
clearly  implied  to  have  been  in  existence  at  that  time,  but  also  to 
have  been  the  true  guide  and  sustainer  of  the  chosen  of  Jehovah 
and  the  mediator  to  them  (and  by  inference  throughout  their  his- 
tory) of  the  same  life  which  he  now  gives  in  its  fulness. 

Thus  in  this  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  not  only  is  the  pre- 
existence  of  Christ  entirely  presupposed  but  even  his  mediatorship 
in  creation  is  assumed  as  a  familiar  thought,  and  his  function  as 
the  mediator  of  true  spiritual  life  to  Israel  set  forth  with  natural- 
ness and  no  apparent  thought  of  making  a  surprising  or  unusual 
statement. 

One  other  passage  calls  for  notice  at  this  point.  In  Romans 
8:19-22  we  have  another  phase  of  the  cosmic  function  of  Christ  set 
forth.  This  time  it  is  directed  toward  the  future  instead  of  the  past. 
According  to  the  apostle  the  present  condition  of  creation  whereby 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAULS    CHRISTOLOGY  73 

it  is  subject  to  the  bondage  of  vanity,  i.  e.  imperfection  (cf.  San- 
day-Headlam,  ad  he.)  and  corruption,  exists  by  reason  of  the  de- 
cree of  God'".  But  this  present  condition  is  not  final.  On  the  con- 
trary it  was  decreed  with  the  express  hope  that  this  same  creation 
should  ultimately  be  freed  from  this  bondage  of  corruption  and 
reach  its  consummation  along  with  the  "children  of  God."  The 
explicit  manner  in  which  the  Apostle  refers  to  the  "children  of  God" 
in  addition  to  the  "whole  creation"  is  sufficient  to  show  that  by  the 
latter  he  does  not  mean  simply  mankind.  He  rather  has  in  mind 
the  whole  of  the  lower  creation,  both  animate  and  inanimate.  It  is 
a  well-known  fact  (oi'Sajiev  yocQ  he  says,  that  this  creation  is 
groaning  and  travailing  together  and  that  it  is  expecting  and  yearn- 
ing for  its  consummation.  This  it  shall  receive  in  connection  with 
the  consummation  of  those  who  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit, 
when  they  receive  their  adoption,  i.  e.  a  new  and  glorious  body, 
and  enter  upon  the  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.  According  to  this  then,  the  consummation  of  the  whole  cre- 
ation not  only  as  a  matter  of  fact  is,  but  what  is  more,  was  from 
the  beginning  in  the  purpose  of  God,  bound  up  with  the  work  of 
Christ.  He  is  not  only  the  redeemer  of  the  children  of  God  but  is 
as  well  the  effective  agent  of  a  cosmic  redemption  and  consumma- 
tion. With  this  may  properly  be  associated  those  passages  in  which 
Christ  is  said  to  be  able  to  bring  all  things  in  subjection  unto  him- 
self (I  Cor.  15:24-8;  Phil.  2:10;  3:21)  and  to  be  the  judge  of  the 
final  destiny  of  men  (H  Cor.  5:10;  Rom.  2:16). 

Thus  in  the  letters  concerning  whose  genuineness  no  rational 
doubt  exists  we  have  Christ  set  forth,  as  (i)  the  mediator  of  cre- 
ation in  the  beginning;  (2)  the  mediator  in  sustaining  and  illumin- 
ating at  least  Israel  during  its  early  (and  by  implication  entire) 
history;  (3)  as  the  judge  of  the  final  destinies  of  man,  and  (4)  the 
Lord  of  the  whole  creation  and  the  agent  of  its  final  redemption. 
In  more  general  terms,  Christ  is  conceived  by  the  apostle  as  the 
mediator  between  God  and  the  world  as  respects  its  origin,  its 
history  and  its  destiny. 

From  this  ground  we  may  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  cos- 
mic function  of  Christ  as  set  forth  in  Colossians  and  Ephesians. 
Our  discussion  may  be  conveniently  grouped  around  the  three  prin- 
cipal points  to  which  Pfleiderer  and  Holtzmann  raise  objection  as 
un-Pauline.  These  are  the  (i)  statement  in  Col.  1:16  that  unto 
him  were  all  things  created;  (2)  that  in  him  all  things  consist 
(1:17);  and  (3)  the  metaphysical  relation  of  Christ  involved  in 
1  :i5-i7.     These  are  closely  related  to  the  features  which  we  have 


"According  to  Jubilees  3  :28,  this  involved  loss  o£  the  power  of  speech 
by  all  the  lower  animals.  Cf.  Josephus,  Aiitiq.  I.,  i,  4  (Niese  I.,  41,  50), 
Secrets  of  Enoch,  chap.  50. 


74  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

above  discovered  in  the  earlier  epistles  and  our  discussion  will  not 
only  comprise  an  exposition  of  the  thought  in  the  present  letters 
but  also  a  comparison  of  it  Vv'ith  the  apostle's  previous  thought. 

It  seems  clear  that  Paul  elevates  Christ  to  a  position  which  is 
above  anything  which  he  has  previously  stated,  for  his  pre-emi- 
nence is  not  only  for  the  present  age  but  also  for  the  age  to  come 
(Col.  I  :i9;  2:9fif ;  3:34;  Eph.  1:20;  i  .-23  ;  4:10.  Cf.  Phil.  2:10,  11 ; 
Col.  3:10,  11).  This  seems  on  the  face  of  it  to  be  contrary  to  the 
clear  subordination  of  the  Son  which  Paul  has  expressed  in  prev- 
ious epistles  (I  Cor.  11:3;  15:24-28;  Rom.  11:36)  as  respects  the 
present  as  well  as  the  future.  As  respects  the  present,  Paul's  pre- 
vious assertions  have  proclaimed  the  pre-eminence  and  the  lordship 
of  Christ,  but  that  lordship  was  to  end  with  the  present  age.  At 
the  end  of  that  time  he  was  to  lay  aside  his  authority  and  become 
subject  to  him  who  had  in  the  present  age  subjected  all  things  unto 
Christ.  In  the  present  epistles,  however,  Christ  apparently  is  to 
be  associated  with  God  in  the  rule  of  the  future  kingdom  (Eph. 
5:5.     Cf.  references  above). 

With  regard  to  this  there  are  two  things  to  be  said.  First,  that 
the  thought  which  Paul  develops  here  must  be  viewed  in  light  of 
the  background  against  which  it  is  projected.  The  readers  of  the 
Colossian  letter  were  attempting  to  interject  a  whole  series  of  an- 
gelic beings  between  God  and  man,  and  it  is  Paul's  intention  to 
show  them  that  mediation  between  God  and  man  was  effected 
through  not  many  but  one  and  that  one  was  Christ.  It  is  thus 
incumbent  upon  him  not  only  to  bring  Christ  into  relation  with  the 
church,  but  also  to  exalt  him  to  a  point  which  left  no  room  for  an 
mtermediary  between  him  and  God.  This  is  expressed  in  its  most 
explicit  form  in  the  declaration  that  in  Christ  the  entire  fulness 
dwells  (Col.  1:19;  2:9ff ;  cf.  Eph.  1:23),  where  the  context  makes 
it  clear  that  the  thought  is  not  ontological  but  dynamic.  This  is 
only  an  elaboration  of  the  thought  contained  in  I  Cor.  15  :24;  Rom. 
8:38,  39,  and  Phil.  2:9-11,  in  which  Christ's  lordship  is  clearly  of 
a  cosmical  character.  Plis  independent  lordship  is  verbally  set  forth 
also  in  Phil.  2  :io ;  3  :2i  ;  I  Cor.  15  :24,  25,  where  it  is  said  that  he  is 
able  to  subject  all  things  unto  himself.  His  active  participation  in 
the  affairs  of  God  appears  also  where  he  is  set  forth  as  the  judge 
(II  Cor.  5:10;  Rom.  2:16).  Whatever  may  be  the  exact  inter- 
pretation of  Romans  9:5  it  probably  says  at  least  that  Christ  is 
"over  all,"  and  certainly  little  more  can  be  said.  (See  Sanday- 
Headlam,  pp.  233-38  for  good  discussion  and  citation  of  literature. 
Cf.  BuRKiTT,  Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  April  1904,  p.  45if). 

Secondly,  it  should  be  noted  however  that  this  supreme  exaltation 
of  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  connected  with  what  must  clearly  be  a 
true  subordination  to  God.     Not  only  is  God  the  God  and  Father 


ELliMEXTS    TO    PAUL  S    CHRISTOLOGY  75 

of  Christ  (Col.  i  :3,  13  ;  2  :2  ;  Eph.  i  :3,  17;  3  :i4),  but  all  that  which 
Christ  effects  is  either  explicitly  affirmed  or  clearly  implied  to  have 
been  wrought  by  him  as  the  medium  or  agent  through  whom  God 
works.  (Eph.  i:5ff;  1:7,  10;  Cf.  4:15,  16,  32;  Col.  1:1,  11,  I3ff). 
Although  he  is  said  to  be  the  end  of  creation  (elga-uTovgHtiaTai.) 

it  must  unquestionably  be  understood  in  a  secondary  sense.  In  the 
same  sentence  it  is  clearly  implied  that  he  is  not  the  source  but  only 
the  agent  of  creation.  In  consequence  of  course  its  source 
and  actual  origin  was  in  God.  If  Christ  is  the  end  of  creation  it  is 
because  he  was  so  appointed  by  God  who  as  its  source  is  also  of 
necessity  the  determinator  of  its  goal.  Cf.  on  Rom.  8:19-22,  p.  7of, 
And  more  exactly  God  is  declared  to  be  all  in  all  (Eph.  2:4ff;  3  :2o; 
4:6).  Not  only  does  he  work  all  things  according  to  the  council  of 
his  own  will  (Eph.  1:9,  11)  that  is,  according  to  his  own  all-suffi- 
cient, eternal  purpose,  but  as  the  God  of  Christ,  himself  effected  all 
things  by  his  own  power  (1:17).  Even  Christ  occupies  his  present 
position  as  lord  over  all  because  the  power  of  God  operated  to  raise 
him  from  the  dead  and  to  place  him  at  his  own  right  hand  (Eph. 
I  :i7,  20;  Col.  3  :i ;  cf.  Phil.  2  rpff ;  Rom.  8 :34).  The  very  fact  that 
God  has  placed  Jesus  at  his  right  hand  indicates  that  God  himself 
still  occupies  the  throne  and  Jesus,  however  highly  exalted,  is  yet 
subordinate  to  him.  Since  God  is  himself  all  in  all,  the  source,  the 
effective  power,  and  also  the  end  of  all  things,  it  is  only  in  a  relative 
sense  (that  is,  as  compared  with  the  hypothetical  intermediaries  of 
the  Colossian  heresy,  and  not  with  God)  that  Christ  is  himself  said 
to  be  all  in  all.  The  fact  is,  in  his  earlier  writings  Paul  ascribes  the 
same  authorit}'^  interchangeably  to  God  or  to  Christ  his  representa- 
tive (e.  g.  Rom.  8:35;  cf.  8:39).  It  seem.s  clear,  then,  that  while 
Paul  in  these  epistles  makes  declarations  concerning  the  cosmical 
significance  of  Christ  which  are  both  more  explicit  and  more  elab- 
orate than  anything  announced  in  his  previous  waitings,  the  place 
to  which  he  really  assigns  him  docs  not  essentially  differ  from  that 
which  he  occupies  in  his  previous  thought.  This  is  not  to  say  that 
Paul  shows  no  development  in  his  Christological  thinking,  but  rather 
that  the  conditions  which  called  for  the  epistle  at  all,  furnished  the 
occasion  for  the  clear  expression  of  that  which  his  previous  thought 
contained  in  embryo. 

As  to  the  statement  in  Col.  (i  :i7),  that  in  Christ  all  things  con- 
sist, Pfleiderer  urges  that  Christ  is  here  virtually  made  a  cosmical 
principle  quite  contrary  to  all  of  Paul's  previous  thought  and  clearly 
dependent  upon  Alexandrian  logos  philosophy.  Lightfoot  and  Ab- 
bott agree  that  in  this  statement  there  is  a  reflection  of  the  logos 
doctrine,  and  Von  Soden  thinks  that  it  is  to  be  rejected  as  un-Paul- 
ine.  It  may,  however,  w^ell  be  questioned  whether  this  is  a  true 
interpretation  of  the  apostle's  thought.    In  verse  15  Paul  has  stated 


'j6  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

that  in  him  were  all  things  created,  and  this  he  explains  in  verse  i6 
by  the  double  expression  that  through  him  (8i'  adtoij)  and  unto  him 
(eii;  avTov)  were  all  things  created  (cf.  Thayer  on  ev,  I,  6,  c). 
The  thought  is  not  that  all  things  separately  are  created  through 
him  and  for  him,  but  that  all  things  together  or  as  a  whole.  The 
rndvTa  is  inclusive  rather  than  distributive.  This  seventeenth  verse 
is  not  a  simple  restatement  of  the  place  of  Christ  in  original  creation 
but  gives  an  additional  thought.  Just  as  he  was  the  agent  and  the 
end  (in  the  way  already  explained)  of  creation  as  an  initial  act,  so 
it  is  by  him  not  as  a  cosmical  principle  but  as  a  person  that  creation 
as  a  present  system  is  upheld.  The  previous  statement  was  in- 
tended to  set  forth  his  superiority  to  the  world  in  its  beginning, 
but  as  Haupt  remarks  he  might  still  be  regarded  as  subordinate  if 
he  were  not  concerned  in  the  operation  and  progress  of  the  world 
at  present.  This  statement  consequently  is  intended  to  set  forth 
his  present  superiority  and  lordship  over  the  world  as  he  is  the  one 
through  whom  and  in  whom  it  has  coherence  as  a  cosmos.  As  he  is 
the  head  of  the  church  and  gives  unity  and  life  to  it,  so  he  is  the 
unifier  and  the  sustainer  of  the  world.  Thus  in  all  things  not  only 
in  a  cosmical  but  in  a  spiritual  sense  does  he  have  pre-eminence 
(Col.  I  :i8).  This  relates  itself  to  the  previously  expressed  thought 
of  the  lordship  of  Christ.  If  he  is  Lord  of  all  (I  Cor.  15:24,  25; 
Phil.  2:11;  3:21)  even  of  the  entire  cosmos,  then  not  only  its  ex- 
istence but  its  direction  is  dependent  upon  him. 

As  a  part  of  this  pre-eminence  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God 
to  make  him  the  mediator,  the  reconciler  of  all  things  unto  himself 
(Col.  1 :2o;  cf.  Eph.  i  :io).  This  has  already  been  implied  in  I  Cor. 
15  124-28,  for  the  son  reigns  only  till  he  has  abolished  "all  rule  and 
authority  and  power"(jtaoav  aQX'^F  >tal  jtaaav  s^ouau^cv  xal  Sajvajiiv) 
when  he  delivers  the  kingdom  ((3aaLAEiav)  to  God,  who  has  really 
accomplished  the  subjection  through  the  agency  of  Christ.  More 
explicitly  is  it  set  forth  in  Phil.  2  :io,  11,  for  on  what  does  the  recon- 
ciliation depend  except  the  recognition  of  the  lordship  of  Jesus 
Christ  (I  Cor,  12:3;  cf.  II  Cor.  5:18,  19;  Rom.  5:10;  Col.  3:3,  4). 

The  third  point  which  we  have  to  consider  is  the  metaphysical 
relation  which  Christ  bears  to  God.  In  speaking  of  Christ  as  the 
image  of  God  and  the  first-born  of  all  creation  there  is  reflected, 
Holtzmann  and  Pfleiderer  think,  the  notion  of  the  pre-existent 
divine  logos,  which  is  all  the  more  apparent  since  the  term  invisible 
(dopaTou)     is  applied  to  God  in  true  Alexandrian  fashion. 

The  statement  concerning  ctoQaTou  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 
It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  invisibility  of  God  was  a  dogma  of  Alex- 
andrian thought,  but  it  is  no  less  true  that  it  was  a  common  concep- 
tion  of   Palestinian   theology    (cf.   above,   pp.   45-47).     It   cannot, 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  ']J 

then,  be  used  as  an  argument  on  either  side,  and  the  decision  must 
rest  upon  other  evidence.     Fortunately  this  is  at  hand. 

As  respects  the  notion  of  pre-exis'tence  it  must  be  noticed  that 
the  point  of  view  from  which  Paul  regards  Christ  is  as  the  exalted 
one  and  not  the  pre-existent  one.  The  whole  conception  in  these 
epistles  is  based  on  the  apostle's  knowledge  of  the  exalted  Christ 
and  all  that  Paul  has  to  say  is  said  in  view  of  this  experience  of 
the  exalted  one.  In  speaking  of  Christ  as  the  image  of  God  he 
clearly  has  in  mind  the  same  thought  he  has  expressed  in  II  Cor. 
4 :4-6,  a  thought  related  to  that  in  II  Cor.  3:18;  Rom.  8 129 ;  Phil.  3 : 
21 ;  cf.  2  :5-ii.  That  the  passage  there  refers  to  the  risen  Christ  admits 
of  no  sort  of  question.  Moreover  Paul  can  also  speak  of  man  not 
only  as  the  image  but  as  the  glory  of  God  (I  Cor.  11  7),  a  passage 
which  compels  us  to  say  that  the  term  "image  of  God"  does  not  in 
itself  carry  a  metaphysical  connotation.  In  addition  to  this,  Paul 
speaks  of  Christ  the  image  of  God  in  the  present  (eativ)  cf.  Von 
SoDEN,  m  loco)  and  constantly  uses  the  present  tense  in  speaking 
of  Christ.  His  point  of  view  is  clearly  the  Christ  seated  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  an4  from  that  exalted  position  he  views  him  in 
all  of  his  relations.  Not  only  is  this  true  as  respects  his  earthly 
life  and  mission,  but  also  as  respects  his  pre-existent  relation  to  the 
universe  and  to  God.  Furthermore,  it  is  his  relation  to  the  universe 
as  that  bears  upon  his  practical  value  for  men  (Haupt,  in  loco,  has 
a  full  discussion)  and  not  his  relation  to  God  with  which  Paul  is 
primarily  concerned.  In  the  forefront  of  Paul's  thought  stands 
Christ  as  the  mediator,  not  only  of  the  creation  of  the  world  both 
animate  and  inanimate  and  of  its  present  continuance  and  progress, 
but  of  its  reconciliation  and  unification  with  God.  As  a  reflex  of 
this  thought  is  his  relation  to  God,  not  considered  per  sc  but  as  it 
affects  his  value  for  men.  As  the  image  of  God  he  is  the  one 
through  whom  men  receive  their  knowledge  of  God,  and  this  knowl- 
edge comes  to  men  not  through  the  pre-existent  but  through  the 
exalted  Christ  (II  Cor.  4:4-6).  Not  even  is  it  through  the  histori- 
cal, for  the  historical  Christ  himself  is  and  must  be  viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  present  Christ  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God.  For 
Paul  this  was  particularly  true  and  it  colored  all  of  his  thinking, 
for  the  Christ  who  had  given  to  him  the  knowledge  and  manifested 
the  glory  of  God  was  not  the  Jesus  who  in  human  likeness  walked 
the  hills  of  Galilee  or  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  but  he  who  in  the 
body  of  glory  (a(I)}.ia  xfjc,  86^r]g  Phil.  3:21)  appeared  to  him  on  the 
way  to  Damascus.  It  is  not  meant  here  to  deny  that  Paul's  thought 
goes  behind  the  exalted  or  even  the  historical  Christ,  but  only  meant 
to  affirm  that  the  former  is  his  starting  point. 

The  pre-existence  of  Christ  is  clearly  reflected  as  being  involved 
in  his  position  as  agent  in  the  creation  of  the  world  (Col.  i  :i5,  17, 


78  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

18).  This  we  have  already  fully  shown  to  be  a  thought  of  the  ear- 
lier letters.  Whether  he  is  to  be  regarded  as  himself  a  creature  or 
as  outside  of  creation  is  a  much  disputed  question.  (For  a  complete 
discussion  of  the  question  see  Lightfoot,  Abbott  and  Haupt  in  loco). 
Haupt  holds  that  "first-born"  (itgoixoxoxoi;)  in  Col.  i  :i5  is  to  be 
taken  not  as  indicating  priority  in  time,  but  as  superiority  in  rank, 
in  which  case  the  genitive  {jido^c,  XTiascog)  may  be  conceived  either 
as  a  partitive  or  as  a  genitive  of  relation.  In  the  former  case  the 
absence  of  the  article  creates  some  difficulty,  but  apparently  not  an 
insuperable  one  (cf.  Win.-Schm.  sec.  19,  2b).  If  taken  as  a  genitive 
of  relation  (a  genitive  of  comparison)  he  would  explain  the  JtpcoTO 
in  jrQCOTOTOXQi;  in  the  same  sense  as  John  1 115,  as  the  one  who  is 
unconditionally  higher  than  all  creatures.  In  either  case  the  geni- 
tive accords  well  with  the  meaning  which  he  finds  in  the  term 
jcQCOTOTOxo?  as  denoting  Christ's  superiority  over  creation.  Light- 
foot  gives  the  first  place  to  the  idea  of  priority  to  all  creation  which 
phase  of  thought  connects  it,  he  thinks,  with  Alexandrian  philosophy 
in  declaring  "the  absolute  pre-existence  of  the  son."  With  this  he 
includes  the  thought  which  Haupt  emphasizes,  viz.,  sovereignty  over 
all  creation,  thus  connecting  it  with  the  Palestinian  conception  that 
"the  right  of  primogeniture  appertains  to  Messiah  over  all  created 
things."  Abbott  agrees  with  Lightfoot  that  the  word  contains  the 
idea  of  the  priority  of  Christ  to,  and  his  distinction  from,  every 
created  thing.  He  disagrees  with  Lightfoot  in  respect  to  sover- 
eignty over  creation,  the  idea  iipon  which  Haupt  lays  all  the  stress, 
and  thinks  that  the  passages  cited  will  not  justify  the  inclusion  of 
this  thought  as  a  part  of  the  meaning  this  interpretation. 

It  seems  clear  that  the  term  JtQCOTOTOxos  does  not  in  Paul 
elsewhere  convey  the  idea  of  superiority  but  of  priority,  as  even 
the  passage  in  Col.  1:18  has  primarily  the  latter  meaning;  for  the 
aQYTi]  is  apparently  a  partial  explanation  of  the  following  words, 
(cf.  I  Cor.  15  :20,  23) ,  Nor  does  it  bear  a  meaning  other  than  that  of 
priority  in  the  New  Testament  writings  (Luke  2:7;  Rom.  8:29; 
Heb.  11:28;  Rev.  1:5),  except  in  Heb.  1:6  and  12:23  where  it  is 
probably  a  title  of  the  Messiah.  In  the  Psalms  of  Solomon  13  :8 
and  18:4  on  the  other  hand  jtQcoxoToxoi;  is  used  to  express  the 
idea  that  the  one  so  designated  is  the  object  of  supreme  affection. 
13  '  8.  oTi  vov^eTi^aei,  SixaLov  wg  mov  ayaii\\(Jiic,  xal  fj  Jtai8£ia  autou 
wg  tniQcoTOToxou.  18:4.  -q  ay6.7V[\  gov  em  Gniqyia  'APgadji,  vXovc; 
'IcQaTjA,  f]  :rcai88La  gov  eqj'  ■^[xag  cog  mov  jiqcototoxov  ixovoyevfi 
A  similar  thought  is  found  in  Sirach  36:12;  Ex.  4:22;  and  Zach. 
12:10.  This  seems  a  well  estabhshed  usage  and  it  is  worth  while 
to  notice  that  in  the  preceding  verse  Paul  has  spoken  of  Christ  as 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  79 

the  son  of  his  (God's)  love  rov  vlov  xr[q  a.yd:f\]q  auTOu  of.  esp. 
Psalms  of  Solomon  13:8).  It  is  pertinent  to  inquire  then  whether 
the  apostle  does  not  use  the  term  in  that  sense  and  with  particular 
reference,  as  verse  13  indicates,  to  the  exalted  Christ.  But  this 
probably  does  not  exhaust  the  thought.  Now  there  can  be  no  shad- 
ow of  doubt  that  in  Psalm  89 :28  the  primary  emphasis  in  .t^ oototo- 
xov  is  upon  the  idea  of  superiority,  pre-eminence.  It  may  also 
be  taken  as  well  established  that  this  rests  not  in  any  wise  upon  the 
origin  of  the  ideal  king  but  is  a  free  choice  of  Jehovah.  The  basis 
of  pre-eminence  is  rather  then  the  supreme  affection  of  Jehovah 
for  the  one  chosen.  So  in  the  present  passage.  The  one  thing  upon 
which  the  apostle  is  laying  emphasis  throughout  the  entire  passage 
(and  even  the  epistle)  is  the  pre-eminence  of  Christ.  (See  esp.  vs. 
18.)  I  think  me  must  say  then  that  the  term  :^qo)x6xoxo!; 
includes  (i)  first  the  idea  of  pre-eminence  and  (2)  the  idea  of 
supreme  affection  as  the  basis  of  this  pre-eminence.  Christ  is  as  the 
"first-born,"  the  "heir  to  the  throne"  and  the  object  of  the  Father's 
love.  (Cf.  John  1:14;  3:16).  A  metaphysical  relation  is  not  then 
reflected  here  at  all.  This  is  not  to  deny  that  Paul  conceived  such 
a  relation  for  Christ,  but  only  that  he  does  not  express  it  in  these 
terms. 

If  our  exposition  of  the  apostle's  thought  in  these  two  epistles  is 
approximately  correct,  it  does  not  differ  in  any  essential  feature 
from  that  which  is  either  expressed  or  implied  in  various  passages 
of  the  earlier  and  unquestionably  authentic  letters.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  pre-existent  relations  of  Christ  are  less  elaborately  exhibited 
than  in  the  earlier  letters.  It  is  the  exalted  Christ  (neither  the  his- 
torical nor  pre-existent  one)  that  fills  the  circle  of  the  apostle's 
vision,  and  it  is  his  significance  for  the  destiny  of  men,  the  church 
and  the  whole  creation  which  he  is  concerned  to  set  forth.  This  he 
does  with  an  elaborateness  and  a  precision  with  which  he  has  not 
done  it  before.  The  ample  explanation  of  this  lies  in  the  conditions 
in  the  Colossian  church  which  he  desires  to  correct,  and  for  the 
Ephesian  letter  in  the  fact  that  it  was  written  at  so  nearly  the  same 
time,  and  was  presumably  intended  as  a  prophylactic  against  the 
rise  of  conditions  like  those  reflected  in  Colossians. 

We  thus  find  that  Paul's  conception  of  the  cosmic  function  of 
Christ  is  essentially  identical  in  the  second  and  third  groups  of  his 
letters'^.  There  is  a  certain  amount  of  development  due  to  specific 
local  conditions,  but  the  view  is  essentially  one.  We  have  now  to 
ask  concerning  the  origin  of  this  conception. 


''It  is  inaccurate  then  to  speak  as  if  Paul's  Christology  shows  kinship 
to  the  logos  doctrine  first  in  Colossians  and  Ephesians.  It  really  shows  no 
more  here  than  in  Corinthians  and  Romans. 


8o  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

In  seeking  an  answer  to  this  question  it  is  necessary  that  we 
get  as  nearly  as  possible  the  point  of  view  of  the  apostle  himself. 
In  w'hat  way  did  he  come  into  his  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  from 
what  point  did  his  thought  begin  and  develop?  As  to  this  question 
there  can  be  but  one  answer.  As  has  been  already  indicated  more 
than  once,  it  was  the  risen  and  exalted  Savior  and  Christ  who  was 
the  beginning  and  the  center  of  the  apostle's  thought.  The  chief 
problem  with  which  Saul,  the  Pharisee,  had  to  deal  and  for  which 
he  sought  an  answer  was  how  he  might  attain  to  the  righteousness 
which  would  make  him  acceptable  to  God.  According  to  his  own 
testimony  (see  especially  Rom.  chap.  7;  Gal.  2:19)  he  had  found  this 
to  be  impossible  through  his  own  effort.  It  was  by  the  risen  Christ 
who  appeared  to  him  on  the  way  to  Damascus  and  who  had  become 
to  him  the  mediator  of  the  new  life  of  the  spirit  that  this  yearning 
of  his  soul  had  been  accomplished.  This  had  been  done  not  by  the 
teaching  of  the  historical  Jesus,  but  by  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  God.  While  this  work  of  Christ  had  thus 
its  beginning  in  the  past,  its  consummation  lay  in  the  future.  And 
that  wath  which  Paul  was  most  concerned  was  the  consummation 
of  that  which  he  had  already  begun  to  realize  through  the  earnest 
of  the  spirit  (II  Cor.  i  :22 ;  5  :5  ;  Eph.  i  :i4).  It  is  thus  the  work  of 
Christ  which  Paul  exhibits  with  so  much  fulness  and  clearness. 
The  questions  concerning  his  person  and  his  metaphysical  relation 
to  God  are  to  him,  at  least  in  his  extant  writings,  matters  of  sec- 
ondary moment.  That  he  held  perhaps  a  well  unified  system  of 
thought  as  to  this  general  problem  the  letters  seem  to  indicate,  but 
he  nowhere  attempts  a  discussion  of  this  as  a  primary  matter.  The 
classic  passage  for  the  discovery  of  his  thought  in  this  particular  is 
manifestly  written  for  a  purely  practical  purpose,  and  the  reference 
to  the  more  theoretical  or  speculative  questions  is  merely  contribu- 
tory to  the  end  he  has  in  view.  As  we  have  already  expressed  it, 
he  is  concerned  with  Christ  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  the 
world  as  respects  its  beginning,  its  history  (in  part  at  least),  and 
its  consummation.  What  we  have  just  been  saying  is  to  the  effect 
that  it  w^as  the  latter  phase  of  the  subject  which  formed  the  center 
of  his  thought.  The  significance  of  Christ  for  the  future  of  man- 
kind and  of  the  world  in  general,  is  that  which  we  find  most  clearly 
set  forth  in  his  writings  and  which  evidently  occupied  the  largest 
place  in  his  thought. 

We  ask  then,  in  the  first  place,  for  the  origin  of  this  phase  of  his 
general  conception  of  Christ  as  the  mediator  between  God  and  the 
W'Orld. 

When  we  turn  to  Alexandrian  Judaism  we  find  such  a  concep- 
tion conspicuous  for  its  absence.  Clearly  the  origin  of  the  Pauline 
conception  is  not  to  be  sought  here.    This  appears  for  three  reasons. 


ELEMENTS    TO     PAUL''s    CHRISTOLOGY  8l 

In  the  first  place,  Alexandrian  writers  do  not  reflect  such  a  concep- 
tion. In  the  Sibylline  Oracles  III  954^1  (Geffcken  /Gyfi)  the  fu- 
ture, as  this  writer  conceives  it,  involves  only  a  return  to  Jerusalem 
of  those  who  are  scattered  abroad ;  the  bringing  of  gifts  to  the 
temple  by  various  subjugated  peoples;  and  things  pleasant  in  the 
land  even  to  the  changing  of  the  face  of  nature.  But  that  this  in- 
volves a  general  cosmic  renewal  is  not  even  so  much  as  hinted.  In 
IV  234ff"  (Gcffcken  i8iff)  we  have  much  the  same  conception. 

In  Philo,  we  have  the  fullest  expression  of  thought  along  this 
line  in  de  execratione  8  and  9,  but  here  again  nothing  more  seems 
involved  in  his  hope  for  the  future  than  a  restoration  of  the  disper- 
sion (if  they  repent  and  turn  to  God),  a  rehabilitation  of  the  nation, 
cities  rebuilt,  barren  land  reclaimed  and  made  fertile  and  everything 
pleasant  and  joyous.  A  somewhat  more  elaborate  description  is 
given  in  de  pracm.  et  poen.  15-20,  but  it  is  not  so  definite.  In  de 
execratione  6  he  sets  forth  his  belief  that  the  good  will  have  a 
sure  habitation  in  heaven,  which  because  of  its  glory  cannot  be  de- 
scribed. And  in  this  same  passage  and  in  de  cheruh.  I.  3,  he  speaks 
of  the  eternal  punishment  which  the  wicked  shall  receive,  mention- 
ing expressly  that  they  shall  be  dragged  down  to  the  very  lowest 
depths  and  "hurled  to  Tartarus  and  profound  darkness."  But  with 
this  whole  circle  of  thought  Philo  combines  his  peculiar  allegorical 
methods  and  conceptions  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  it  rather  diffi- 
ctilt  to  say  precisely  what  that  conception  was.  It  seems  quite  justi- 
fiable to  say,  however,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  con- 
ceived in  anything  approaching  a  cosmic  sense.  In  the  Secrets  of 
Enoch,  likewise,  no  such  conception  appears,  nor  do  we  find  it  in 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon. 

In  the  second  place,  the  ]\lessiah  played  a  scant  role  in  Hellen- 
istic Judaism.  He  does  not  appear  at  all  in  the  Sibylline  Oracles, 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  or  the  Secrets  of  Enoch.  In  Philo  he  is 
spoken  of  in  a  somewhat  vague  manner,  but  apparently  is  some 
ordinary  person  chosen  as  leader  of  the  restored  Israel,  whose 
work  is  mainly  that  of  a  temporal  ruler  and  has  no  significance 
except  for  the  nation  in  a  positive  wav  and  negatively  for  its  ene- 
mies. Charles'  remark  (Hast.  Diet.  Vol.  I,  746a)  that  "the  in- 
clusion of  the  Messiah  and  the  Messianic  kingdom  in  Philo's  escha- 
tology,  though  really  foreign  to  his  system,  is  strong  evidence  as 
to  the  prevalence  of  these  expectations  even  in  Hellenistic  Juda- 
ism" seems  to  rest  on  too  slender  support.  When  the  doctrine  of 
a  Messiah  is  found  only  in  one  writing  of  Hellenistic  Judaism  (and 
really  means  little  here)  and  is  absent  in  three  others  in  which  if 
held  it  certainly  would  have  been  included,  this  would  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  it  was  not  so  common  a  conception  as  Charles  intimates. 

"This  book  was  probably  written  by  a  Jew  during  the  last  quarter  of 
the  first  Christian  century. 


i^2  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

The  evidence  rather  tends  to  show  that  the  messianic  hope  of  Hel- 
lenistic Judaism  was  largely  centered  round  the  thought  of  a  restor- 
ation to  the  Holy  Land,  purged  and  purified  from  its  enemies  and 
oppressors. 

In  the  third  place,  this  phase  of  the  conception  does  not  connect 
itself  with  the  logos  doctrine  of  Philo  and  other  writers.  For  the 
logos  was  a  mediator  between  God  and  the  world  as  respects  the 
past  and  the  present,  but  it  was  connected  with  no  hope  centered 
about  the  future. 

In  Palestinian  Judaism  we  find  a  different  condition.  The  idea 
of  a  final  renewal  of  creation  involving  not  only  the  destiny  of  hu- 
manity but  the  lower  orders  of  creation  as  well  is  a  familiar  one  in 
Jewish  literature.  It  can  be  traced  easily  as  far  back  as  the  second 
Isaiah  (65:17;  66:22)  and  is  incipient  also  in  portions  of  the  first 
Isaiah  (see  e.  g.  4:2-6;  11:6-9). 

In  the  literature  of  later  Judaism  we  find  the  conception  first  ex- 
plicitly set  forth  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees.  Thus  in  i  :29  we  read 
" .  . .  .  from  the  day  of  the  new  creation  when  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  shall  be  renewed  and  all  their  creation  according  to  the 
power  of  heaven  and  according  to  all  the  creation  of  the  earth  until 
the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord  shall  be  made  in  Jerusalem  on  Mount 
Zion."  (Cf.  1:26;  4:26;  see  Charles,  Book  of  Jubilees,  p.  10, 
note).  Again  in  the  Book  of  Enoch,  44:4,  5  we  read,  "And  on  that 
day  I  will  cause  mine  elect  one  to  dwell  among  them,  and  I  will 
transform  the  heaven  and  make  it  an  eternal  blessing  and  light,  and 
I  will  transform  the  earth  and  make  it  a  blessing  and  cause  mine 
elect  ones  to  dwell  upon  it;"  Cf.  also  51  :iff ;  72:1 ;  91  :i5,  16.  Itmay 
be  noticed  in  passing  that  we  have  here  this  "new  creation"  or  the 
renewal  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth  connected  with  the  day  of  Je- 
hovah and  the  triumph  of  the  Messiah. 

In  the  Assumption  of  Moses,  10:1  we  read,  "Then  will  his 
kingdom  appear  throughout  all  creation,  etc."  This  passage  may 
have  underlying  it  the  thought  of  the  renewal  of  creation  but  about 
that  we  cannot  be  positive,  and  do  not  insist  upon  it  as  a  witness  to 
the  currency  of  the  conception. 

When  we  pass  to  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  we  find  the  concep- 
tion explicitly  set  forth.  Thus  in  32:6  (cf.  31 :5 ;  32:5)  "For  there 
will  be  a  greater  trial  than  these  two  tribulations,  when  the  Mighty 
One  will  renew  his  creation."  And  again  in  57 :2  "Because  at  that 
time  the  unwritten  law  was  named  amongst  them  and  the  works  of 
the  commandments  were  then  fulfilled,  and  belief  in  the  coming 
judgment  was  then  generated  and  hope  of  the  world  that  was  to  be 
renewed  was  then  built  up  and  the  promise  of  the  life  that  should 
come  hereafter  was  then  implanted."  Cf.  44:8-12.  In  73:  1-74:2 
this  renewal  is  expressly  connected  with  the  triumph  of  the  Messiah 
(Cf.  also  Charles,  on  57:2).    The  same  conception  is  reflected  also 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  83 

in  IV  Eara,  7  75,  "O  Lord  show  this  also  unto  thy  servant,  whether 
after  death  even  now  when  every  one  of  us  giveth  up  his  soul,  we 
shall  be  kept  in  rest  until  those  times  come  in  which  thou  shalt  renew 
the  creation." 

Not  only  was  this  a  common  conception  of  Judaism  but  was 
taken  over  directly  by  the  primitive  church.  Thus  in  Matt.  19:28 
the  regeneration  is  not  only  taken  for  granted  as  a  common  con- 
ception, but  is  expressly  connected  with  the  establishment  of  the 
kingdom  by  the  Son  of  Man. 

In  the  address  of  Peter  to  the  people  in  Solomon's  porch,  as 
recorded  in  Acts  (3:21)  the  same  conception  is  referred  to  in  the 
phrase  "restoration  of  all  things"  and  is  apparently  taken  as  an  ordi- 
nary part  of  the  message  of  the  primitive  church.  In  Revelation 
21:1  and  II  Peter  3:13  "a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth"  are  re- 
ferred to  and  is  a  reflection  of  the  same  thought. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  in  all  of  these  passages  the  conception 
is  assumed  as  generally  well  known  and  as  a  part  of  the  common 
eschatological  expectation.  It  is  everywhere  taken  for  granted  that 
the  readers  hold  the  idea  as  an  established  certainty.  The  writers 
never  deem  it  necessary  to  undertake  an  argument  to  prove  its  cer- 
tainty and  at  least  partially  assume  that  it  is  well  known  even  in  its 
characteristic  features.  Occasionally  they  do  give  a  short  descrip- 
tion of  the  phenomena  which  shall  accompany  or  characterize  it,  but 
never  anything  more.  There  would  seem  to  remain  but  little  doubt 
that  this  is  the  origin  of  the  conception  in  Paul.  He  knew  it  not 
only  as  a  dogma  of  Judaism,  but  as  a  part  of  the  common  Christian 
expectation  as  well.  This  he  has  indicated  in  Rom.  8:22  where  in 
referring  to  it  he  says  that  "we  know"  where  "we"  can  only  mean 
"we  Christians." 

Not  only  was  this  the  source  of  Paul's  general  expectation  of  a 
final  consummation  in  which  the  creation  should  again  be  brought 
into  harmony  with  God  according  to  its  original  condition,  but  also 
is  the  warrant  for  connecting  this  consummation  with  the  Messiah. 
We  have  already  seen  above  that  in  Enoch,  in  Baruch,  and  in  cer- 
tain New  Testament  writers  the  two  are  brought  together.  The 
setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  among  men  involves 
also  certain  transformations  in  the  whole  creation  which  shall  bring 
it  into  harmony  with  the  new  age  which  is  thus  begun. 

As  a  part  of  the  same  general  conception  is  that  also  in  which 
the  Messiah  appears  as  the  judge  who  acts  for  God  and  determines 
the  destiny  of  men.  This  conception  appears  to  have  been  the  com- 
mon one  among  those  who  thought  of  the  Messiah  as  anything 
more  than  a  mere  political  leader.  It  receives  classic  expression  in 
the  Book  of  Enoch,  Chaps.  37-70.  A  passage  or  two  may  be  quoted. 
Thus  in  45  13  we  read  "On  that  day  mine  Elect  One  will  sit  on  the 


84  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

throne  of  glory  and  make  choice  amongst  their  (men's)  deeds,  and 
their  mansions  will  be  innumerable  and  their  souls  will  grow  strong 
within  them  when  they  see  mine  elect  ones  and  those  who  have 
called  upon  thy  glorious  name."  And  another  69 :27,  29,  "And  he 
sat  on  the  throne  of  his  glory,  and  the  sum  of  judgments  was  com- 
mitted unto  him,  the  Son  of  Man,  and  he  caused  the  sinners  and 
those  who  have  led  the  world  astray  to  pass  away  and  be  destroyed 
from  off  the  face  of  the  earth. ..."  "And  from  henceforth  there  will 
be  nothing  that  is  corruptible ;  for  the  Son  of  Man  has  appeared  and 
sits  on  the  throne  of  his  glory  and  all  evil  will  pass  away  before  his 
face  and  depart;"  cf.  also  55:4;  62:3,  5;  61 :8;  62:2;  see  also  47:3 
and  51 :3.  This  conception  is  attested  also  in  the  apocalypse  of 
Mark,  chap.  13,  and  parallels  and  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts. 

There  seems  no  room  to  doubt  then  that  so  far  as  elements  ex- 
ternal to  his  own  experience  were  contributory  to  Paul's  conception 
of  Christ  as  the  agent  of  God  in  the  final  renewal  of  the  cosmos  and 
its  unification  and  reconciliation  with  himself  (i.  e.  God),  they 
were  drawn  directly  from  Palestinian  Jewish  thought  and  from  the 
conception  of  the  early  church. 

Supporting  this  also  was  the  apostle's  own  experience.  As  he 
knew  Christ  to  be  the  mediator  of  the  life  of  the  spirit  of  God  to 
himself  at  the  present,  the  one  through  whom  he  had  come  into  the 
knowledge  of  God,  and  was  persuaded  that  even  now  he  was  at  the 
right  hand  of  God  it  was  natural  that  he  should  make  him  the 
mediator  of  all  that  which  in  the  future  he  hoped  to  receive  from 
God.  The  formal  schema  of  his  thought  for  the  future  was  given 
to  him  by  Judaism.  The  conception  of  the  Messiah  as  the  judge 
and  vicegerent  of  God  he  knew  almost  certainl}^  as  likewise  current 
in  Judaism.  The  elevation  of  Jesus  to  that  office  and  those  preroga- 
tives was  due  to  his  identification  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  to  his 
experience  of  the  blessing  mediated  to  him  through  that  same 
Christ.  The  form  of  his  expectation  was  that  of  Judaism,  the  con- 
tent of  his  hope  grew  out  of  his  own  experience. 

We  have  next  to  inquire  for  the  origin  of  the  apostle's  concep- 
tion of  Christ  as  the  mediator  in  his  pre-existent  state,  according  to 
which  it  will  be  recalled  he  was  conceived  as  the  dispenser,  to  Israel 
at  least,  of  spiritual  life  and  light.  It  is  important  for  us  to  remem- 
ber again  that  it  was  the  exalted  heavenly  Christ  whom  Paul  knew 
as  the  dispenser  of  life  and  light  to  himself  and  to  the  church ;  that 
the  center  of  his  whole  conception  was  the  Christ  of  the  heavenly 
world  who  had  manifested  himself  to  Paul  and  shown  him  the 
glory  of  the  invisible  God,  (II  Cor.  4:4-6).  It  has  also  been  shown 
above  that  Paul  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
and  that  this  was  in  reality  an  inference  of  the  apostle  based  on  the 
fact  of  the  existence  of  Christ  after  his  resurrection  as  a  heavenly 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUL's    CHRISTOLOGY  85 

being  and  his  revelation  of  himself  to  Paul  as  such.  This  fact  in 
the  light  of  the  apostle's  Jewish  conception  of  the  heavenly  world  and 
a  pre-existent  Messiah  gave  ample  ground  for  his  conception  of 
Christ  as  pre-existent.  In  addition  to  this,  he  also  conceived  Christ 
as  closely  associated  with  God  in  the  mode  and  conditions  of  his 
existence  and  in  prerogatives.  Thus  far  we  have  seen  that  Paul 
was  building  directly  on  his  own  experience  interpreted  in  the  light 
of  the  ordinary  Jewish  conceptions. 

When  we  pass  now  to  the  pre-existent  Christ  as  mediator  it  must 
be  said,  I  think,  that  we  move  out  of  the  field  of  Palestinian  Jewish 
theology.  (But  see  Baldensperger,  op.  cit.,  p.  I47f).  There  is  no 
evidence,  of  which  I  am  aware,  that  tends  to  show  that  the  thought 
of  mediatorship  was  connected  in  any  way  with  the  conception  of  the 
Messiah,  even  in  its  highest  form.  The  Similitudes  of  Enoch  are 
the  highest  and  most  elaborate  expression  of  the  doctrine  of  Mes- 
siah in  the  whole  literature  of  Judaism.  And  one  seeks  in  vain,  I 
think,  for  even  a  suggestion  that  the  Messiah  was  as  a  pre-existent 
being  in  any  wise  a  mediator  between  God  and  man.  He  had  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  the  course  of  human  history  or  of  human 
life,  but  first  assumed  mediatorial  and  representative  significance  at 
the  consummation  of  the  age.  In  Enoch  46:5;  cf.  45:3,  it  is  said 
that  "he  (the  Messiah)  will  put  down  the  kings  from  their  thrones 
and  kingdoms  because  they  do  not  extol  and  praise  him  nor  thank- 
fully acknowledge  whence  the  kingdom  was  bestowed  upon  them." 
But  it  is  very  improbable  that  the  Messiah  is  thought  of  as  in  any 
way  the  source  of  their  authority.  A  period  previous  to  the  Mes- 
sianic time  seems  for  the  most  part  not  to  be  included  in  the  circle 
of  the  writer's  vision. 

Nor  may  the  Targumic  doctrine  of  the  Memra  be  appealed  to 
as  a  background  for  Paul's  conception.  It  is  impossible  to  prove 
that  the  present  literary  form  of  this  conception  (Memra)  is  older 
than  the  third  Christian  century,  nor  can  its  currency  in  the  oral 
teaching  of  the  Rabbis  be  shown  to  have  existed  in  the  time  of  Paul. 
Besides,  there  are  some  indications  that  this  doctrine  is  itself,  in 
part  at  least,  the  result  of  external  influence.  The  term  itself  as  it 
appears  in  the  Targum  is  not  consistently  used.  In  many  passages 
the  Targum  is  a  faithful  and  direct  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  this  term  is  not  used  at  all.  In  other  passages  of  precise- 
ly similar  character  and  import  it  is  used.  Such  a  phenomenon 
seems  most  naturally  explained  upon  the  supposition  that  it  was  not 
the  expression  of  a  doctrine  which  the  Rabbis  held  but  a  purely 
rhetorical  expression.  The  difficulty  which  they  felt  was  one  of 
literary  character  and  rhetorical  form  rather  than  of  philosophic 
significance.  This  would  hardly  have  been  true  if  the  matter  had 
been  worked  out  among  them.     It  has  also  been  argued  on  other 


86  DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

grounds  that  this  doctrine  shows  traces  of  Alexandrian  influence^^. 
There  is  a  suggestion  that  the  need  for  some  mediatorial  agent 
between  God  and  man  was  felt  in  the  Old  Testament  itself.  The  semi- 
personification  of  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  prophets,  and  the 
personification  of  wisdom  as  it  appears  in  Proverbs  8: iff,  22f; 
Sirach  1:4,  15;  Wisdom  6:16;  7:22ff,  26  reflect  this.  But  in 
neither  of  these  is  there  anything  like  the  definite  personal  concep- 
tion which  Paul  has  of  Christ.  It  is  worth  while  to  notice  that  one 
of  the  fundamental  elements  in  Paul's  conception  of  Christ  is  that 
of  the  0O(pia  Oeoij  (I  Cor.  1:24).  The  context  in  which  this  ex- 
pression occurs  indicates  that  the  conception  was  one  of  the  funda- 
mental elements  of  Paul's  religious  philosophy.  It  does  not  seem 
quite  groundless  to  suppose  that  this  is  in  some  way  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  wisdom  as  it  appears  in  Jewish  literature.  But 
the  evidence  to  support  such  a  supposition  is  too  meager  to  allow 
it  any  large  independent  weight.  There  are  also  some  indications 
that  he  had  in  mind  a  different  notion,  and  one  which  was  prevalent 
in  the  Corinthian  church  itself.  The  doctrine  of  angels  as  the  mes- 
sengers of  Jehovah  to  men  is  due  to  the  feeling  for  some  necessary 
mediator  between  God  and  man.  This  is  a  constant  factor  in  cer- 
tain parts  of  later  Old  Testament  thought  and  is  fully  developed 
in  the  later  Jewish  literature.  The  angels  are  divided  into  groups 
and  the  most  prominent  of  them  not  only  receive  names,  but  are 
assigned  certain  definite  and  constant  duties  before  Jehovah.  (See 
e.  g.  Dan.  12:1 ;  Enoch  4o:2ff  et  passim;  Rev.  12:7;  cf.  Matt,  i  :2o; 
4:11;  13:39;  16:27;  18:10;  24:36;  Luke  12:8;  John  12:29;  Acts 
27:23).     This  conception  is  strictly  personal. 

While  we  must  apparently  say  that  Judaism  knew  nothing  of  a 
pre-existent  mediatorial  activity  on  the  part  of  the  Messiah  yet  it  is 
equally  clear  that  in  the  time  of  Paul  the  streams  were  converging 
in  it,  which  might  with  tolerable  naturalness  result  in  such  a  con- 
ception. One  who  knew  the  Jewish  feeling  of  the  necessity  for 
some  mediator,  and  at  the  same  time  desired  to  exalt  the  Messiah 
to  a  place  of  complete  and  universal  pre-eminence  would  find  some 
warrant  at  least  for  so  doing.  But  no  adequate  explanation  can  be 
solely  derived  in  this  way. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  in  the  doctrine  of  the  logos  as  it  ap- 
pears in  Alexandrian  thought,  and  particularly  in  that  of  Philo,  we 
have  a  conception  which  resembles  that  of  Paul  in  the  particular 
point  now  under  discussion.  But  Paul  is  so  close  to  the  Jewish 
thought  in  every  other  phase  of  the  conception  up  to  this  point 
and  in  general  occupies  a  point  of  view  so  far  removed  from  the 
logos  doctrine  that  one  hesitates  to  find  his  conception  of  Christ  as 

"See  for  a  good  discussion,  Hackspill,  Revue  Biblique,  Jan.,  1902,  pp. 
58-73.    Cf.  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria,  pp.  281-283. 


ELEMENTS    TO    PAUl's    CHRISTOLOGY  87 

the  mediator  of  God  to  the  world  in  his  pre-existent  state  in  this 
Alexandrian  doctrine.  We  have  already  seen  how  far  apart  the 
two  conceptions  are  as  respects  the  matter  of  personality.  But  in 
addition  to  this  point  the  logos  though  conceived  as  the  medium  of 
creation  and  sometimes  spoken  of  as  if  active  in  creation,  is  never- 
theless the  type  according  to  which  God  constructs  the  universe  and 
so  far  passive.  This  seems  to  me  Philo's  fundamental  notion.  The 
statements  attributing  to  it  activity  are  poetic  personification. 
Paul's  conception  is  essentially  different.  Its  origin  hardly  lies  here. 
It  is  rather  to  be  found  in  the  natural  expansion  in  the  atmosphere 
in  which  he  lived,  of  his  thought  of  the  mediatorship  of  Christ.  He 
knew  Christ  as  the  present  heavenly  mediator  and  held  also  on  inde- 
pendent ground  to  his  previous  heavenly  existence.  The  extension 
of  his  mediatorship  to  that  pre-existent  life,  especially  with  the 
thought  of  a  mediator  for  that  time  familiar,  seems  then  a  not  un- 
natural step  to  take. 

The  origin  of  Paul's  conception  of  Christ  as  the  mediator  in 
creation  is  still  to  be  sought.  We  have  just  seen  that  the  growing 
thought  of  mediatorship  was  the  explanation  of  his  conception  of 
the  pre-existent  activity  of  Christ.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the 
same  conception  is  to  be  utilized  here.  As  was  remarked  above,  in 
the  discussion  of  I  Cor.  8:io  the  mediatorship  of  Christ  in  the 
new  life  and  in  creation  were  associated  together.  It  seems  to  be  a 
well  warranted  inference  that  they  were  connected  just  as  closely 
in  the  apostle's  thinking.  This  inference  is  very  strongly  supported 
in  the  only  other  passage  in  which  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  the 
mediator  in  creation.  In  Colossians  i  :i5f  we  have  a  rather  ex- 
plicit statement.  Here  Christ  as  the  goal  of  creation  and  as  the 
mediator  of  its  final  consummation  is  very  closely  associated  with 
Christ  as  related  to  creation.  In  the  eighteenth  verse  his  relation 
to  the  church  is  spoken  of  and  in  the  twentieth  verse  the  significance 
of  his  mediatorial  death  for  the  final  reconciliation  of  all  things  unto 
God  is  expressly  set  forth.  In  Romans  S:igff  it  is  indicated  that 
the  whole  history  of  the  cosmos  was  planned  with  reference  to  its 
final  consummation  in  Christ.  According  to  these  passages  then, 
the  mediatorial  work  of  Christ  is  the  core  of  history.  The  cosmos 
is  at  present  being  brought  into  subjection  to  him,  and  through  him 
shall  receive  its  final  consummation.  As  now  the  world  was  planned 
from  the  beginning  with  reference  to  him  and  his  work,  and  as  he  is 
its  present  and  future  Lord  the  mediator  to  it  of  the  divine  life  and 
purpose,  and  as  he  was  before  his  life  on  earth  associated  with 
God,  so  it  follows  by  a  natural  inference  that  he  was  the  mediator 
of  the  divine  purpose  and  power  in  its  origin.  If  our  representation 
be  correct  then,  the  cosmic  function  of  Christ  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  one  word  mediator.    The  center  of  this  conception  was  Paul's 


88  DOES  HELLENISM  CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 

own  immediate  experience.  From  that  he  argued  in  both  directions 
to  the  consummation  and  to  the  beginning,  and  assigned  to  Christ 
the  same  relation  in  respect  to  both  that  he  knew  him  to  occupy 
in  the  church.  The  cosmos  was  a  unit  and  the  mediatorship  of 
Christ  was  perfect  and  comprehensive. 

It  is  to  be  freely  admitted  that  the  logos  of  Philo  is  closest  to 
Paul  at  this  point — the  pre-existent  cosmic  activity  of  Christ.  It  is 
possibly  true  that  the  Philonic  conception  may  have  given  Paul  a 
suggestion.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  Paul  Philo  and  John, 
are  all  witnesses  of  the  same  general  tendency  in  that  whole  period. 
It  cannot  be  maintained  that  Paul  is  purely  Jewish  in  his  thinking. 
But  it  does  seem  to  be  true  that  by  far  the  most  dominant  elements 
in  his  Christology  outside  of  his  own  experience  were  drawn  from 
Jewish  theology.  He  must  have  known  something  of  Hellenistic 
thought,  for  he  could  not  escape  it;  but  it  is  surprising  how  small 
is  its  contribution  (if  we  must  grant  any)  to  his  Christology. 


IV. 

We  have  now  investigated  three  conceptions  of  Paul,  all  ex- 
hibiting phases  of  his  general  doctrine  of  Christ,  These  are  "Sec- 
ond Adam,"  Pre-existence,  and  Cosmic  Function.  We  have  en- 
deavored to  discover  by  a  consideration  of  these  whether  or  not 
Hellenism  contributed  constituent  elements  to  the  apostle's  Christ- 
ology. 

In  his  doctrine  of  the  "Second  Adam"  we  found  that  no  Hellen- 
istic element  could  be  discovered,  but  that  it  rested  upon  the  apostle's 
experience  interpreted  in  the  light  and  by  the  terms  of  Palestinian 
Jewish  theology. 

The  second  doctrine,  Pre-existence,  we  found  likewise  to  be 
independent  of  Hellenistic  influence.  It  again  was  due  to  the  apos- 
tle's experience,  which  resulted  in  his  conviction  of  the  risen  ex- 
alted Christ  as  a  heavenly  being.  This  interpreted  in  the  light  of 
his  conception  of  the  heavenly  world  and  the  Palestinian  Jewish 
doctrine  of  the  pre-existent  Messiah  gave  him  his  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence.  His  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  was  also  seen  when 
properly  interpreted  to  betray  no  sure  indication  of  Greek  in- 
fluence ;  although  it  does  not  conform  entirely  to  Jewish  thought, 
the  explanation  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  spontaneity  of  the  apostle 
himself. 

The  third  conception,  the  Cosmic  Function  of  Christ,  was  found 
to  be  less  clearly  and  elaborately  set  forth.  The  fundamental  con- 
ception was  that  of  mediatorship  which  was  conceived  primarily 
in  a  religious  sense  as  it  affected  the  spiritual  life  of  the  church. 
Looking  toward  the  future,  this  included  also  a  cosmic  redemption 
and  unification  which  was  explained  in  the  light  of  his  experience 
and  a  common  conception  of  Jewish  theology.  Looking  toward 
the  past,  there  was  less  certainty.  As  respects  Paul's  conception 
of  Christ  as  the  mediator  in  history  there  was  found  little  ground 
to  call  in  any  doctrine  except  those  resulting  from  his  own  ex- 
perience and  his  training  in  the  Jewish  school ;  and  the  growing 
conception  of  mediatorship  was  felt  to  account  in  large  measure 
for  the  doctrine.  As  respects  the  thought  of  Christ  as  mediator  in 
creation  there  is  still  less  definiteness.  At  this  point  he  has  gone 
away  from  Judaism  and  shows  some  relation  to  the  Alexandrian 


90 


DOES  HELLENISM   CONTRIBUTE  CONSTITUENT 


logos  doctrine.  But  the  general  difference  between  Paul  and  Philo 
in  respect  to  the  point  of  approach,  the  predominant  relation  of 
Paul's  thought  to  Palestinian  Judaism  and  particularly  the  clear 
and  explicit  connection  of  Christ  as  mediator  of  the  new  life  and 
of  creation,  all  seem  to  indicate  that  the  logos  doctrine  did  no  more 
than  perhaps  to  furnish  a  suggestion.  It  did  not  furnish  a  constituent 
element  to  this  doctrine.  It  as  the  other  phases  already  considered 
seems  best  explained  by  the  natural  expansion  of  the  thought  of 
Christ  as  mediator. 


V 


^^R-Aii 


OF  THE  A 

UNIVERSITY  I 

OF  / 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILU  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $100  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


_^£R_JiLlS36_ 


BFC'O  UX 


^jsrrsM-^HH 


^5mimt 


^«sd» 


UD 


-^*l£^fel^^&- 


FEB27'63-3PIVI 


LOAN  OFPT. 


0^ 


-it'S^ 


^^^^^^^^ 


ost 


W^ 


n^^ — ' 


■^-'*^->  Lb 


MAR  0  r  :'"'^^3 


T3Hrf64W 


LD  21-100w-7,'33 


.-t -y 


\        S.         ♦■  ••  ,  c      I 


''^\:5.'< 


^^m. 


c. 


'  ^  ^ 


